zzzspace
-
Posts
228 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by zzzspace
-
-
-
Turbohog, excellent contribution !!!
Kegetys you rule man. I know you from as far as OFP buddy. You always do great work.
And SH3.
-
Win-8 is not an upgrade, it's a downgrade.
(but then again I consider Win7 a most regretable downgrade of XP from my standpoint as being the user ... while Win8 looks like the ultimate microsoft horror-story).
-
You have some interesting ideas. One thing that I think AI need to use more intelligently are some very simple survival tactics- standoff range and high altitude. AI tend to dump altitude too much sometimes, bringing them right into the heart of an enemy missile envelope. You can fix some of this bad behavior though, by setting them to "Evade fire".
Additionally, besides remembering where threats are, they should "know" more about those threat's capabilities: for example, if they know the location of a 2S6 or SA-8, they should never allow themselves to get within like 7km of it. Additionally, they should be able to make intelligent guesses about what behaviors will get them killed (i.e., trying to gun a Tunguska) and be allowed to abort the mission if they can't engage some threat without getting themselves killed.
I also view plane AI behavior as one of the big impediments to creating a dynamic campaign.
Stand-off and altitude tactics definitely, Speed. Completely agree there as well.
In saying the above I'm looking at it a bit more from the direction of taking advantage of the ability to sneak in and attack at low-level now (lets presume recent INTEL is good and current) now that this sort of flight finally works within DCS World. And to leverage cover and terrain as much as possible for ingress and egress and also in between attack runs.
It can be done and used for CAS and ground attack but I'm also looking forward to doing strike tactics with an F-15E ... and how all this will fit and sit within a DC.
You'd certainly like to think the Ai would check the RAW and see what's out there and where. :) :D Obviously they have to take some risk with the SAMs, especially optical and IR. But if aware a SAM is around, and the location, they should fly accordingly when within range. You know what I mean. If the Ai can be made to work well in gun-only, then they should be able to nail dodge CMS and get out of dodge manoeuvres. I would prefer they didn't abort, but you can basically make them abort now via the ME.
So I'd like them to take measure risks with the sharp responses and good memory, and so care about approach and regard to terrain opportunities. At the moment the Ai use altitude and distance to get away, but they don't use cover, except by accident.
Been thinking for a long time that Ai is the big issue to clean up before a DC will work and make sense as a plan-able and achievable campaign.
-
Your Idea would degrade "Player" involvement to a lower rating. Remember this is in the end a game intended to be entertainment for the purchaser of the "Sim" and with this in mind lower player involvment would remove the dynamic part of the entertainment intended.
All AI are dumned down for this reason, it allows more play time (entertainment) for the buyer. FPSs are notorious for dumn AI, shoot the guy standing next to an AI combatant and he looks around like a deer caught in headlights instead of diving for cover. This is the same concept as in the AI of this Sim. It just allows for a longer and more dynamic player involvment experience.
Incorrect, the Ai has never been 'dumbed-down' at any point. It was never intelligent to begin with. It's always been quite terrible, but has shown very slow and halting improvements over the past ten years.
This topic also has zero to do with how long you last in the sim, as far as I can see as that has to do with your tactics and skills and your own decision-making. Don't do it wrong and you'll last far longer, hit your target, and RTB. This is a technical study SIM, not a shooter, there is no comparison.
But if you want or require 'dumbed-down' Ai, you simply sellect the level of Ai that you want, or else can handle, within the mission editor - there is an option for it for every unit in the SIM.
But I also completely fail to see how making the Ai work better makes the game-play less-enjoyable for anyone! For when/if the Ai works, and wingmen do as asked, without just blundering in and getting themselves hosed in seconds, then the mission's goals could be attained, and you would have actual teamwork occurring routinely. And survival and RTB and target prosecutions would become vaguely realistic.
And if these things did work as one would hope and expect, I dare say most players would greatly enjoy that, a very great deal ... and considerably more than before.
-
I've identified another aspect to the Ai engagement behaviour which seems to affect all of the Ai fighter aircraft in DCSw (don't know if this is a known issue, apologies if it is)
If you place 2 x 2 in a guns-only and watch you soon realise that once the Ai mutually 'choose' each other as their respective enemy target, they will only attack that one single target aircraft, and not any other in the fight.
They also will not switch targets at any time even if the perfect opportunity emerges to do so and get an easy kill.
So when one of the aircraft is destroyed, the remaining two against one gun fight does not occur, because the second available Ai aircraft will not fight, because it was not a party to the original mutual targeting arrangement decided upon at the initial merge.
So this second aircraft, after defeating its target simply flies away and lands, leaving it's wingman to fight it out alone ... not good mav!
But if the opposite side wins the remaining guns battle, even then the remaining two aircraft do not then engage each other, even though they would still have enough fuel to do so.
They just ignore each other and go ahead and land at the same runway, as though they are no longer on opposite sides. Or rather, they act like they're not combatants any more.
-
Bottom line is that, neither PN nor CLOS has much to do with terrain avoidance problem. Any missile that leads a target is going to have a problem. Terrain avoidance is more of a command/navigation issue, rather than actual guidance issue, imo.
What I can't understand is where the onerous complication is in simply giving a real command system (back at the launcher) a digital terrain model for the area of operations, so that the commands it gives doesn't do something stupid like waste a viable missile that could have gotten a hit.
This seems to me to be a quite simple and obvious software solution to the whole problem of complex terrain.
After that all you need to do is shape the trajectory to best conserve energy and maximise intercept options. And the DTM helps here, because it also allows the guidance system to predict the most probable path the target will take, given through the ground is not one of the options.
-
Thanks for confirming the bug zzzspace, hopfully ED will fix it! ;)
What you wrote above, print it out, laminate it, stick it to the wall, and get on with the rest of your life. ;) :D
You'll thank me in ten years.
have fun johno
-
Yeah, that's it, ramp start screwed up the navigation, so it flys to the wrong waypoint co-ordinates, by the look of things.
It ignored the usual waypoints, and passed through radar coverage of active SA-11, SA-15 and SA-19s, ignored them, and headed off out to sea, at the correct altitude, but towards 291 degrees, and 331 knots. Should have been doing 420 knots.
Nothing like the mission plan. Like you said, headed back to Germany.
Looks sort of like the nav has gone chasing after a UTM 137T coordinate, instead of 138T.
Congrats! ... so now YOU have to test all the jets, to find out if they're all doing it. Have fun! :D
-
Yes, default date, I'll try a ramp start from 3:30AM and come back.
-
Had a dig around about this system and where it's at now (nasty-land):
--
TUNGUSKA
Missile variants have 9 kg continuous expanding rod warheads with ~10km range
9M311: Original missile, laser proximity fuze.
9M311K (3M87): naval version of the 9M311 used by the Kashtan system.
9M311-1 export version of the missile.
9M311M (3M88): Improved version of the missile
9M311-1M: Used with the Tunguska-M1 radar proximity fuse for improved capability against cruise missiles. Pulsed tracking light instead of constant flare for better ECCM. Range improved to 10 km.
PANTSIR-S1 (improved and expanded capability Tunguska system)
Far more lethal version of the 9M331, but about 26 kg heavier.
Missile variants have a 20 kg continuous expanding wire cable warhead, with a reported ~18 km range and 35k feet.
57E6
57E6-E
57E6Y
(my guess is the warheads are differnt, so you mix them in the tubes, for different types of engagements)
PANTSIR MODES
Using a digital data link system up to six Pantsir-S1 combat vehicle can operate in various modes.
- Stand alone combat operation: All the combat sequence from detecting a target to its engagement is fulfilled by a single Pantsir-S1 combat vehicle without employing other assets.
- Operation within a battery ("master-slave"): One Pantsir-S1 operates both as combat vehicle and as "master" command post. 3 to 5 Pantsir-S1 combat vehicles acting as "slave" receive target designation data from the "master" and subsequently fulfil all the combat operation stages.
- Operation within a command post: The command post sends target designations to the Pantsir-S1 combat vehicles and subsequently fulfill the designation order.
- Operation within a battery with command post and early warning radar: The command post receives air situation picture from a connected early warning radar and sends target designations to the Pantsir-S1 combat vehicles and subsequently fulfil the designation order.
--
The Russians are planning to replace all 22 Tunguskas with the Pantsir.
As you can see for these images, the system had no trouble with a crossing shot on slow-ish cruise weapon. Interestingly the cruise missile was punched sideways, and spinning out of the air, rather than being structurally disrupted by the multi-ring expanding-wire, which clearly didn't even need to physically hit the cruise missile in order to kill it ... or else ... the warheads have multiple detonation modes ... which seems likely from this.
Pantsir is one bad-ass SAM!
-
I think I have found the problem!
I created a little test mission, where the German Tornado performed well against a BUK M1 site. I wondered what was diffrent to my mission, I uploaded earlier here, and found the solution. It is the daytime.
While the Tornado IDS performs well at noon, it doesn't so at 4 o'clock in the morning. I have uploaded two test missions for reference.
Hopfully somebody will fix this. :thumbup:
I hope that helps,
best regards,
John
EDIT: It seems to start working somwhere between 4:15 and 4:30 am at the default date. It looks like the "virutal" sunrise beginns between those two times that date, as at 4:30 it seems to be a tick brighter.
Sorry John, that's not it either, I launched the same test mission at 4AM, and the missiles were in the air by 4:04AM, and the EWR and Buk system were dead seconds later.
-
ACMI shows German IDS Tornados launching HARMs
-
Today I was testing something and I started to notice a strange behaviour of the AI:
While the UK Tornado, equipped with 2 ALARMs, 2 fueltanks and some other stuff engages a SA-11 Battery just fine, a German Tornado, equipped with 2 AGM-88s, 2 fueltanks and some other stuff just goes crazy. :doh:
The German Tornado just changes his course and flies away from his route, away from the land and away from the SA-11 battery. It looks like he want's to fly back to Germany. :lol:
I haven't looked at your track files but I just did a quick test with three German IDS Tornados set for SEAD with HARMs, smash an EWR and Buk battery, in very short order. No odd behaviours noticed, and the HARMS were used very aggressively and effectively. Ai was set to Random.
So it is not the HARM, nor the aircraft, or the combination of them.
-
For example if you have your target on the other side of a hill you can approach masked by the hill at high speed and loft it over the hill, turning back after release. That way, whatever air defence was on the other side cannot touch you - best they can hope for is to detect and engage the bomb(s).
There are exceptions (start 3:41 into it):
-
Do you also have the software to make an audio or video recording of this?
-
I'd add a tick box to that for enabling the saving of Snapviews too.
Nate
AMEN!
-
and promptly deleted by hitting the red X button accidentally. In a case of non-idiot-proof design brilliance, this deleted the template for the entire game without a prompt.
Wot, you no likey-likey goodest feature? :D
Make your own SAM sites and vehicle columns etc, then save them as a mision file called "maturin-templates.mis" so that when you delete your templates again - and you will delete them again - then you can re-open it and recover the site layout, and re-save them as templates within the mission editor.
And stop complaining already!
-
Its INS is also aided by GPS to maintain accuracy, so unless the SAM radar physically relocates, missile will lock onto it using millimeter-wave radar and still kill it.
Yes, but decoys, jamming, countermeasures, obstacles ... imagine steal-cable netting shot into the path of an ARM just prior to impact ... lots of quite inexpensive ways to interfere with such missiles getting easy-kills. Not to mention that cannons on some systems will be trying to shred them.
If you were crewing a mobile SAM you'd collectively spend a lot of time thinking about, working-out and practicing ways to survive ARM attacks, and rendering them far less effective than textbook cases, or video promos by a manufacturer. ... just saying. ;) Like always, the operator can make a bad system look good, and vis-versa.
In DCS the Ai just die. :D
-
ZZZ
Hey man how the heck are you? Got your sound pack by the way.....awesome work.
That is the key to taking down an SA-19, detection time. (I know DUH) :D
They may track the HARM but the law of physics is against the SAM on a snapshot engagment. I would suspect that a majority of the intercepts were in fact snapshots and lots of luck. But the ripple HARM tactic fixes that too.
Hey, it's awesome to see you around again mate, if you like this sound mod then I'll just have to take that as a real compliment. :D
Yeah, ripples of a fast ARM will definitely get through the marginal Tunguska capability.
They might have a lot more luck swatting Mavs though.
Never been comfortable with the way Mavs take an almost perfectly flat and straight line to their target after burn ... ??? ...
-
5 and 7 are the most inner recks?
more tham that, I'm unable to chamge ripple intervals in the PROF. page...
I seem to be missing something.
I'll be glad if someone could right down the right procedure for rippling bombs for dummies like me...:music_whistling:
thnx
SB11
http://www.lockonfiles.com/index.php/topic/37736-dcs-a-10c-training-videos/
See last sections of the first video within this thread (start 16 mins in). ;)
-
USAFMTL, looong time, no see. :)
Here's that second crossing engagement.
There were two SA-19s in that wedge of armor, and as you can see the HARM was aiming for the SA-19 on the other side of the wedge, to the one that fired at it.
It seems it was this slight resulting crossing angle that prevented a successful engagement. In my first set of images, the HARM was aiming for the SA-19 which killed it, so no crossing angle in that one.
So it seems that the SA-19 system is not struggling with the tracking of the harm, it is struggling with navigating a missile onto it quickly enough, so I expect as the angle departs from zero the chances of a hit drop away fast, and that's why a hit is fairly rare.
-
1
-
-
9M311 always has been able to intercept ARMs (since FC2 & DCS BS 1.x) in game..
The only things they changed in recent DCS builds (during DCS A-10C beta) was Tor and S-300 no longer being able to engage HARMs. S-300 can still engage Kh-58, Kh-31P, etc, but it will ignore HARM and get killed by it.
Tor will also ignore it, so the only thing to defend S-300 from HARM is Tunguska at the moment (which in reality, Tunguska would have much more difficult time to shoot down HARMs, as opposed to Tor..).
Indeed. I also found a second instance of a head-to-head with a HARM and an SA-19, except in this case the SAM went close down the HARMs right side, as it was still trying to turn in on it, but it didn't detonate, it just crossed it's path immediately behind the HARM's butt, and kept on going. (and the 9M331 does follow a PN path)
But it was a very close miss on the ACMI, so this indicates maybe the warhead model on the SA-19 blows frag in a cone in front of itself maybe? As that would explain why the ACMI images I've posted above have the HARM dead, but still some distance from the 9M331 that killed it.
-
Found it, 9M331 from SA-19 tracks and kills incoming AGM-88 HARM.
There was no visible wavering tracking changes within the trail the SA-19 within the ACMI.
Black shark internal rotor sound level and LPF
in Sound
Posted
http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1629376&postcount=27
Yes, the sound-engine does have an adjustable LPF function. But there's no independent rotor sound for the interior. It just uses the spill-over from the exterior rotor sounds (two of them), so using LPF in those .sdefs ... well, you can image what would happen.
The only interior balancing you can edit with respect to the outside level in the BS are the levels of the interior turbine sounds, for both left and right engines, with respect to each other, and also with respect to the external turbine sound level. But the interior turbine sounds are both set to about 40% of the level of the external turbine sound in this mod.
I'm guessing you're not having an actual functional cockpit audibility issue of any kind, that this is just an aesthetic issue? That it should not be as loud as the exterior level, and should have an LPF cut at say around 1.2k and up?
Which means it would require its own separate interior rotor sound .wav file and its own .sdef file for setting the gain and LPF.
I'll report this as an 'issue' in the Sound Bugs and Issues forum.