Chenstrap

Basically the title. I can't find anyway to kill these objects, either using bombs or super powerful triggered explosions. Eventually I just tested "Scenery Destruction Zone, and it turns out they dont even have a damage model. These objects are pretty common at a lot of the bases, would be nice to get a damage model for them where the opening collapses or something. The smaller bunkers, IE "bunkerhill", objects have a destruction model.

@NineLine Perhaps a more elegant solution: Instead of firing flares, could you not just push a message to the player or something? Maybe like spam a "WAVE OFF WAVE OFF" text message every half second for like 5 seconds or so.

I dont think those are pics from a camera. I'm pretty sure those are screenshots from in game.

@Massun92 Congrats on getting stuff implemented into the game I echo @JonathanRL post. Having more/higher quality assets to play with for designing missions is more or less in the same tier as the F4 for me Im sure youre about to be swamped with new questions, but any ideas on what all is planned to be added to Core?

Hey everyone, love the mod. Has anyone else had an issue with not being able to spawn AI or Player aircraft under either of the Aircraft shelters (Either Shelter01 or Shelter02)? In the editor when I put a player/AI slot under the shelter when the aircraft is spawned at a parking space, the sim changes the planes spawn location at mission start/when the group is activated. Static aircraft work fine, as do "Start from ground" player groups (But thats not an option for AI units). Is this unavoidable, is there a lua value I can tinker? Thanks for any tips/help

I thought about suggesting/requesting adding parameters to the current tasks, but I think that risks breaking older missions. Plus I think would make things a bit complicated for new mission makers trying to sort out the parameters. Entirely separate task keeps things a bit more straightforward I would think. Having the flight split up would be really great actually.

The current racetrack orbit is has fighters making long slow lazy turns that take close to 3 minutes for the AI to complete the full 180 degree turn. Thats fine for heavies, but for combat aircraft is far too slow and means they take up way too much real estate (Pretty common to see ~16NM between legs which is way too much space). Comparatively, the circle orbit has a much tighter radios and only takes the ~60 seconds to complete a 180 degree turn and get to the reciprocal heading. In the Racetrack orbit planes will only bank too roughly 25 degrees in the turns. In the circle orbit they maintain 50 degrees of bank. A new "Combat Racetrack" orbit with parameters tweaked to ensure the AI make their 180 turns much quicker would be great. May honestly just need to change the bank angle setting they use.

I am a week or 2 late but I have been doing a lot of tinkering with SEAD flights and SAMs and want to give my 2 cents on their behavior. That said I generally want to echo @Exorcet in that the current behavior is more realistic then what is being proposed. To expand on SEAD tactics a bit, generally SEAD flights will only want to shoot at 2 targets: Search radars and tracking radars, so things like Early Warning Radars and communication/C2 vans arent engaged by these sorts of weapons. The purpose of a SEAD flight is to suppress air defenses to allow time for strikers to ingress, bomb targets, and get out. Because they carry a small number of anti radiation missiles, they generally cant afford to shoot multiple missiles at one battery since they often need to keep a window open for 10+ minutes against multiple potential threats. An SA-11 battery with 4 TELs and a snowdrift STR isnt 5 threats; its 1 threat, because the SA-11 TELs are reliant on the Snow Drift SR to search for targets. As for the behavior in DCS, right now aircraft firing anti radiation missiles (This goes for flights with task SEAD or any A/G task where you give them ARMs) only shoot at active radars that the aircraft have detected on RWR. IE if you put a radar unit in the mission but have its radar off (AI off or emission off triggers do this), aircraft wont shoot at it because it is not actively emitting. Another example of this is the SA3. The Flat Face search radar is picked up on RWR further out than the Low Blow tracking radar (This is true for Player and AI flights). As such AI SEAD flights will engage the search radar from max range, but they will only engage the tracking radar from ~15 miles out because that is when the radar is picked up on RWR. This explains whats happening with the SA-11 in the given example from @Capn kamikaze . The SA-11 Fire Dome TEL does have onboard radar, but its a fire control/tracking radar ONLY, it doesn't do search which is the job of the Snow Drift. SEAD aircraft wont shoot at the TEL unless has locked onto a target and launched a missile because thats the only time the radar is emitting. However thats unlikely to happen seeing as HARMs have a longer range then the SAM does and by the time the SA-11 can shoot a missile the Snow Drift SR has already eaten a HARM and the TELs never had a target to engage. @Flappie if you have already pushed a ticket regarding this thread I ask you amend to it as the behavior being asked for by Kamikaze is less desirable then the current behavior by the AI SEAD flights. With that said, there ARE features for AI SEAD flights that need to be added in. Namely, AI SEAD aircraft currently can not perform pre briefed HARM shots (Players can do this already). As I described above they will only shoot at actively emitting radars. This post has already gotten quite long, but if you like I can provide more details on what sort of features would be really nice for pre briefed HARM shots.

Its a really odd decision for them to focus on the northern part of the map first. I understand the ISIS fight happened in the north, but we have the Syria map already to do exactly that. The south and east is where most of the interesting military action happened, and thats really what people have wanted for years. I was really hoping we would get something like this for the first pass: Have Baghdad as the rough northern boundary. Eastern part of the map stretch into Iran including Dezful, Omidiyeh, Bandar Bushehr, and Khark Island. The south should include Kuwait obviously and some part of the Gulf, but the Saudi region will need some creative/historical workarounds due to size (And MANY people are underestimating just how huge the region is). The closest major Saudi airbases are 600 miles from Baghdad (Thats 90 mins of transit time, one way, not including tanking), a distance far too large for people to want to use in day to day flying. I think a reasonable work around would be to use rework civilian Saudi Airports into military ones. Al Qaisumah airport and Rafha would be the best options. As for the west, something a bit past Mudaysis would make a good western boundary. Would be a bummer to miss H2 and H3 but the line has to be drawn somewhere reasonable given Iraq is so huge. The play area above would have provided good flexibility for recreating historical scenarios the Iran Iraq war, Desert Storm, OIF, and fights against a number of terrorist groups right out of the gate. It would also allow for great fictional scenarios such as US coalition vs Iran.

Before people shout down my throat I am not talking about the flyable F16 module. I mean the AI only F-16C Bl.52. Putting Aim 7s on this jet would be great for 2 reasons 1: Realism. Exports models of the Block 52 are often Aim 7 capable due to embargos. For example, modern Iraqi and Egyptian air forces do not even have the AMRAAM in inventory due to embargo, and their F-16s fly with Aim 7s. 2: This AI version of the F-16 comes with an Aggressor livery by default. By giving this aircraft Aim 7s it would be a more flexible Aggressor jet for missions. Giving it the whole Aim 7 family would give max flexibility for mission making.

With the comms rework underway theres a couple features I would love to see personally. The first is, currently, the new callsigns are segmented by aircraft. So right now the F16, F18, F15E (AI only model), and B1/B52 all have new callsigns in game but they dont share these new callsigns. Personally I think it would be great if all the callsigns were shared among all aircraft. Simply put this would give mission makers max flexibility for making missions. The way its currently implemented is extremely limiting as missions designed for multiple aircraft are still limited to the old Gun/Car callsigns, in particular those with custom voice overs. Secondly, we have a number of training focused Terrains in DCS, and more coming (NTTR and Marianas in game and North Australia on the way). I think it would be a great addition to have some Red Air/Aggressor based callsigns for mission creation. AWACS Callsign: Baron - Baron is typically the Red Air AWACS/GCI at Red Flag. Fighter Callsigns: Ambush, Bandit, Flanker, Gomer, Ivan, Mig, Stalin

Noticed this tinkering in the editor. In 1v1s the AI will shoot a Fox 3 and crank after the shot. In any form of 2vX, 3vX, or 4vX the AI will shoot and stay nose hot for several seconds before they pull a max escape maneuver. Even when targeted or shot at with Fox-1s (R27ERs in this case), aircraft in 2/3/4vX engagements who have shot an Active Missile do not perform any kind of evasive maneuver until the missile is extremely close to hitting them. For these tests all aircraft are set to fighter sweep (CAP aircraft do not crank ever for some reason...) and their AA missile usage is set to "Max Range Launch". The target flankers do not have jammers. 2v2 Not Cranking.trk2v2 Not Cranking JF17.trk2v2 Not Cranking F16.trk1v1 JF17 Cranking.trk1v1 F18 Cranking.trk1v1 F16 Cranking.trk

Fixed the mistake with the variable name, but issue persists. Im purely going off what info I can find on the forum/in the scripting wiki and am basing my formatting off that. Learning as I go really Im just confused because pushing other task in a similar manner works just fine. For example these work perfectly, and are generally structured the same as the follow parameter (at least the line where the task is pushed): EngageGroup = { id = 'EngageGroup', params = { groupId = 2, priority = 1 } } Group.getByName('Aerial-1'):getController():pushTask(EngageGroup) local function follow() nCAP = {"27", "29", "F1", "18", "16", "F5"} unit = nCAP[math.random(4)] myGroup = Group.getByName(unit) selection = Group.getID(myGroup) followTask = { id = 'Follow', params = { groupId = selection, pos = {x = 200, y = 0, z = -100}, lastWptIndexFlag = false, } } Group.getByName('follower'):getController():pushTask(followTask) trigger.action.outText(unit, 15) trigger.action.outText(selection, 15) end follow() But the switch waypoint task keeps throwing this weird empty error

Hi, trying to learn lua scripting to streamline making some more complex missions where triggers can become a cluster. I am not using Mist or Moose, just the default DCS scripting stuff. Open to using either if an easy solution can be found. I am having with the switch waypoint feature in Lua, every time I try to call it DCS triggers an empty error box. No info on what the issue is as theres no text. Script I am using: SwitchWaypoint = { id = 'SwitchWaypoint', params = { fromWaypointIndex = 2, goToWaypointIndex = 4, } } Group.getByName('Aerial-1'):getController():pushTask(SwitchWaypoint) When I run the script it just throws an empty error screen with no context on what the error is. When I try another task like Engage group it works fine. I have ensured the aircraft has enough waypoints so that there is a 4th one to switch too Secondly, can someone help me understand how the "AI options" work in LUA? They are structured differently from the other tasks, but theres little in the way of examples to follow for someone who is unsure of the syntax. For Example I am trying to manipulate the Radar Using parameter but cant sort out the proper syntax or how to update these options during a mission (IE I want an aircraft to start the mission with its radar off, but turn it on at some point during the mission).

Theres not an "F-15E" option in the user files section of the site, so content for the strike eagle is being uploaded to different sections. Need to be more attentive with this in regards to 3rd party releases as this happened with the Mirage F1 also and theres a bunch of content for it still hidden under "Other" .