Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'mission editor'.
-
There's been plenty of times where I join a random server and stumble upon there only being hot start slots, with optionally some cold start slots far far away from the AO. Hotstarts are immensely immersion-breaking for me and take away a great part of the experience of using DCS, namely going through the whole startup sequence. First shutting down a hotstarted aircraft is not an option, imho. To alleviate this issue and that of mission makers having to add two slots to accommodate for those wanting cold starts and those wanting hot starts, I'd like to propose to allow the user to decide whether ramp/ground starts (Takeoff from ramp, Takeoff from parking hot, Takeoff from ground, Takeoff from ground hot) are hot or cold. Essentially merging the types leaving us with Takeoff from ramp and Takeoff from ground. I'd imagine one way of allowing a user to decide would be to show a checkbox or combobox for ramp start slots which allows the user to select which type they'd like. Naturally, startup types should still be enforceable for mission makers and to preserve backcompat with older missions.
- 93 replies
-
- 5
-
- waypoint type
- mission start
-
(and 3 more)
Tagged with:
-
Hi everyone, In the future, would it be possible to expand the icons displayed in the mission editor and F10 map? Currently we have 2 icon styles available, NATO and Russian. Personally, I'd like to request another symbol set be included, and that's NTDS symbology (for air and naval units) and NATO APP-6A (or later) for ground units. One limitation of the current NATO symbology, is that it doesn't have direction information present, so when the game is paused, you can only find direction by clicking on a unit and reading the heading from the information table. See the spoiler below for a full legend: Where NTDS falls over on though is classifying ground units, so if NTDS would be considered, it should be used for naval and airborne units exclusively, with ground units classified under NATO APP-6A symbology (or later). Regarding the NATO symbology though, DCS typically gets symbols correct (but not always, I'll go through them all and report them), however, introduced in APP-6A, is an affiliation indication, which is done by symbol shape, and colour (currently DCS does colour, but not shape). For ground units: A blue rectangle is used to denote units that are friendly A red square at a 45° is used to denote units that are hostile A green square is used to denote units that are neutral A yellow quatrefoil is used to denote units that are unknown Another thing DCS does, is that it uses hostile symbology for REDFOR and friendly symbology for BLUFOR. Personally, I think it would be better (and more accurate) if it uses friendly symbology for units that belong to a certain side, and hostile symbology for units belonging to the side that's hostile to said side. Even better would be coalition specific symbology, even if it was NATO for BLUFOR and Russian for REDFOR (though personally, we need a drastically different coalition system that's more flexible, which I might make a separate wishlist thread about, though a similar thing has been requested before). One thing that I did mention here, is the usage of icons per unit, and icons per group. When sufficiently zoomed out, units belonging to a group should use an icon appropriate for the group (even if user defined), positioned over the average position of all the units in the group, instead of having an icon for each individual unit, which when zoomed out, end up cluttered and stacked on top of each other. When zoomed in however, such that icons are sufficiently spaced apart, they should switch to individual icons (like we have now). When clicked on the group icon, it should show a small list of units to be selected, organised the same way as the group. The only other thing I'll mention is airfield icons, would it be possible to change these to the kind of icons seen on aeronautical charts? Filled circle with runway layout for an airfield with hard-surfaced runways 1500 - 8069 ft Unfilled circle with a coloured border for airfields without any hard-surfaced runways Runway layout with a thick coloured border for airfields with at least one runway that is longer than 8069 ft Blue used to denote airfields that have a control tower Magenta used to denote airflields that don't have a control tower
-
I can't see the H-6J in the mission editor in any map, but can see it in the encyclopedia and in missions built by others. I have tried both short and long repair, as well as deleting the China asset pack folder and repairing so it downloads again. I am running the current open beta. Since others can make missions with it, I assume this is operator error. What am I missing?
-
When using the payload restriction feature(btw great feature guys) I noticed it takes a lot of time to find specific weapon. What if there was a search bar to make finding specific weapons easier.
-
hello i am trying to create zone capturing system using mist mist.flagFunc.units_in_zones{ units = {'[blue][vehicle]'}, zones = {'Zone1'}, flag = 7, req_num = 4, } essentially i want a zone to be captured when at least 4 units are present in the zone.The zone should become neutral when less than 4 units are present.Currently with the above code the script only runs once(4 units are entering a zone,flag 7 becomes true and a message is shown but when the conditions are no longer met flag 7 doesnt become false and the appropriate message is not shown) finally i would like this to be functional for multiple swithes of the ownership of a zone.
-
I would just want the lua coding window in ME to be bigger. It would make working with lua much easier.
-
- mission editor
- me
-
(and 1 more)
Tagged with:
-
If you build a mission with multiple flyable client aircraft it would great to see them as static aircraft if not taken by a player. At least for aircraft that are set to ground or ramp start. Maybe as an option. Would make the airfield look more populated.
- 19 replies
-
- 2
-
- me
- mission editor
-
(and 3 more)
Tagged with:
-
Is there any way I could set custom spawn points on the carriers in the same manor you can set "ground" spawns with jets and helicopters and place them on flat pieces of ground? It would save so much headache with struggling to get my squad mates spawned in nice and cleanly during our missions. I'm somewhat familiar with LUA so if it is possible with that, I am open to that solution as well! thanks!
-
- forrestal
- supercarrier
-
(and 1 more)
Tagged with:
-
Working on a google map that shows locations of SAMs as recent as 2013 (there are no more recent sources) that contains SA-2,3,5,6,8,9. This should help you in your mission planning. The empty sites are used to spread units out and also for more SAMs in storage so its possible these sites would be used in a conflict. Let me know if you are interested in helping or have any updated info. I worked on it for abt 5 hours and also lost abt 2 hours bc it didn't save but hopefully this will be completed in the next month or so. Currently it only has some of the southern SAMs but all locations are accurate and you can actually see the launchers if you zoom in on some. I am working on recovering the info I lost so that Damascus has all its SAMs. Here's the link: https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=1HF_PQ5XQJLSwCJR5QeuuE90u3Zuc5H-O&usp=sharing
-
Hei, I was playing with mission editor and Viggen. Then came an idea, since the radar can be used for ground avoidance, how can I make a mission, where the player could not use his/her night vision goggles? Cheers
-
DISREGARD I was messing around randomly trying things and I noticed that the year was set to 2016. Then I remembered that SCUDS were a big deal during the Gulf War in 1991, so I switched the year and that gave me the option to add them. I can delete this post if the admins want. ### Hello everyone, I just installed Combined Arms into the latest version of DCS. I see existing available Combined Arms missions but I don't see any way to add units (a SCUD for instance) to my own missions. I watched a video and it seems there should be a "missiles" category in the ground units section, but I don't have that. I haven't tried any other kinds of units. Am I misunderstanding what Combined Arms is supposed to allow me to do? Is it just that I haven't found the right way to do it? Am I experiencing a bug? I did a search here in the forums and ended up with a thousand returns spread over 40 pages, so if the answer is in there and I didn't spot it I apologize. Can anyone help? Dave
- 3 replies
-
- 1
-
- missions
- adding units
-
(and 3 more)
Tagged with:
-
I would like to suggest for some view-related settings that I mark in this binary options script, this should also be included in the Mission Editor section of Mission Options so that it can facilitate mission creator. so there is no need to open the options script in the .miz file. It's like replacing the coalition before, it seems likely to be incorporated into the next update. Thank you.
-
What is the status of the bug with ME placeable NDBs (non directional beacons) not working on the Persian Gulf map? I can remember the issue being reported 2 years ago, yet to this day none of them seem to work for anyone (both ARC and TACAN, latest personal tests with ARC in multiplayer with correctly placed and "working" beacons which no module can pick up). And does this have to do with the general map bug of fixed location beacons (NDBs) being coded in Hz instead of Mhz (typo-bug, as also present on Syria for a while, seemingly coming from and Eagle keylog being used as a baseline by Ugra Media)? This bug is relevant as for any mission scenarios that are above the absolute lowest denominator being able to home in on a road base or FARP when other means are not available or in DRIFT can be quite relevant (especially when forced to use terrain masking). Moreso since the PG map is quite empty and repetitive in many areas making terrestrial navigation especially at deck and even at angels an issue. An earnest update - even if it reads "we had no time/no ressources for that" - would be appreciated to at least know what the status is.
- 6 replies
-
- placeable beacon
- pg
- (and 8 more)
-
I suspect this is simply a limitation of the ME, but figured I'd ask here to see if anyone has some advice/opinions. I am working on a mission that includes some formation flying where the player participates in formation navigation between several waypoints. There are triggers when making turns from WP to WP telling the player when to start the turn. Additionally, I am trying to insert voiceovers whenever the player gets into proper formation, when they fallout of formation, and when they return to formation. I have all this working. BUT ... if the player happens to fallout or return to formation at the same time there's a turn, the sounds collide and step on each other. I'd prefer the turn calls take priority over the general "you're back in formation" or "you're drifting away" sounds. Is there any way to solve this within the mission editor? My workaround is to make the sounds more brief so the chance of a collision is reduced, but certainly not eliminated. Thanks!!
- 2 replies
-
- mission editor
- sounds
-
(and 1 more)
Tagged with:
-
I'm trying to be able to have music play during a mission I'm building in the editor while also being able to have other audio files being triggered without it just stopping the music. That way I can have the music playing while have audio files of people talking at the same time. Is there a way to do this? I haven't been able to find anyone mention this issue so I assume either I am a total forehead and the answer is right in front of me, or its impossible to do which would be pretty lame.
-
Currently the possible AI tasks depend on a fixed mission type (e.g. CAS, CAP, Runway bombing, etc.), but I would like to see a mission type that includes all AI tasks for multipurpose missions. It was a great idea adding the blue/red combined arms coalitions to unlock all units for a side, so if something similar could be done for AI tasks, it would allow mission designers and scripters to add more complexity to their missions. Another restriction that should be removed is that ground units cannot be assigned to attack designated aerial targets. This would be very helpful especially for Lua script designers, who could tell AI SAM units to engage only specific targets (like e.g. only attack bombers with a Sa-2 group, or attack only aircraft above a certain altitude, or attack only HARM missiles with a Sa-10 site, etc.). Currently ground units can only be assigned to attack other ground units. I hope ED considers to add these simple changes. Imo it would open up a lot of opportunities.
-
Hi, I've been having issues where AI aircrafts do not fly at the altitude I gave them through the task mission in scripting. I have a mission with two fighter groups (Rafale C), an AWACS (E-3A) and a Tanker (KC-135MPRS). At first, I make them start from parking. I then give them this task : local on_the_way = { id = 'Mission', params = { airborne = true, route = { points = { [1] = { type = "Turning Point", action = "Fly Over Point", x = coordinates_plane.x, y = coordinates_plane.y, alt = args.altitude, alt_type = "RADIO", }, [2] = { type = "Turning Point", action = "Fly Over Point", x = coordinates_racetrack_start.x, y = coordinates_racetrack_start.y, alt = args.altitude, alt_type = "RADIO", } } }, } } local orbit = { id = 'Orbit', params = { pattern = "Race-Track", point = coordinates_racetrack_start, point2 = convertCoords(args.point2), speed = args.speed, altitude = args.altitude, } } local controller = Group.getByName(args.group_name):getController() controller:resetTask() controller:pushTask(on_the_way) controller:pushTask(orbit) The aircrafts all go to their zones and perform their race track orbit so I know that it works. The issue I have is that my AWACS flies close to ground level despite the altitude of 20000 feet I give them (I checked this altitude by printing it). When I change the AWACS plane to any other plane it then works and the AWACS flies at the right level. Things get weirder with the fighters, when starting from parking, my Rafales fly at the right level. But when they start from the runway, they fly at ground level as well. And when I change their type to Mirage 2000C, they work again and fly at the right level, even when starting on the runway. So what I thought to be a plane issue seems to also be an issue with their starting zone. But I tried changing the start of the AWACS and none of my changes made it work. I'm also thinking the issue could come from mission scripting as the altitude works when I set the planes routes from the mission editor and not from scripting. I was wondering if anyone had encountered the same issue in the past. And if so, is there a solution to these issues. Thanks a lot for your help.
-
Hi everyone, I'm trying to replicate the tanker tracks as found in this document (unrestricted distribution, pages 88-90) on the Marianas map. In order to set up the orbit, I'm using the switch waypoint command, where upon completion of the current racetrack, they'll switch back to the first waypoint of the racetrack. Once on station, I want the tankers to keep performing the racetrack for 2 hours before returning to base. The set-up is fairly simple: Tankers will takeoff and fly their route Upon reaching their respective ARIP waypoints a flag is enabled (*TANKER NAME*_ANCHOR) This first flag is used as a condition for a 'switch waypoint' command at the last waypoint of the racetrack, which will switch their waypoint back to the first waypoint of racetrack. After 7200 seconds have passed since *TANKER NAME*_ANCHOR turned on, the flag turns off and a *TANKER_NAME*_RTB flag turns on. The *TANKER NAME*_RTB flags are used to trigger a separate switch waypoint command, which will switch their waypoint to the follow the proper exit route (typically back to the ARIP waypoint and then to the AREX waypoint, and then follow their initial route backwards). Everything works perfectly, up to stage 4, because instead of returning to base after 7200 seconds, they return to base after completing 2 racetracks, as if they decide to not obey the switch waypoint action. I've double and triple checked the flags for each action (waypoint actions are given unique names and it's absolutely brilliant now that we can give flags custom names). I've tried disabling the 'RTB on bingo fuel' option - no effect. I've tried making a separate trigger zone at each anchor point and using a triggered switch waypoint (using AI SET TASK/PUSH TASK) - no effect. Any ideas? tanker_tracks.trk New Mission (Tankers) #01 (30-07-2005, 09-00-00, Hist. Weather).miz
- 4 replies
-
- racetrack
- switch waypoint
-
(and 3 more)
Tagged with:
-
The title says it all. More often than not, the real world readings are not what ends up being set in the ME for those two wind level. We used to have individual control of those two readings. It’d be great to be given that flexibility back.
-
The use of those type of weapons are sadly a reality as we have seen recently in Syria. As DCS choppers are getting some love from ED, adding this dimension to the battlefield would be totally amazing now we have NBC capable choppers like the Mi24 and the AH64. Not by necessarily adding new loadouts but by allowing us to add, from the mission editor, N/B/C areas that would incapacitate or kill the crew of aircraft or vehicles flying/driving inside them if their vehicle/aircraft is not NBC compliant. The implications could be game changing. Imagine areas that would incapacitate pilots flying Hueys or Mi8, that would require to call some Mi 24 for support? Ground convoys where trucks and light vehicles suddenly stopping while keeping BMPs running? New reconnaissance tasks for choppers to size the areas and report them to the AMC? I could think of a simple implementation where non NBC capable vehicles/aircraft will start to have pilot/driver damage set when entering a designated area. What about having this on NBC choppers when pilots forgot to enable the pressurization or have a pressurization failure? This could also apply to the A10 by the way since it is the only aircraft sharing airspace with choppers. Then, in the future, as ED is working on dynamic weather, we could dream of having those BC areas drifting away with the set wind? What about linking the amount of pilot damage per unit of time to the level of NBC threat attached to a given area: N areas could be set with a user defined level of radioactivity, C and B areas to a type of agent?
-
Hi everyone, Would it be possible to make the items contained in "additional properties for aircraft" persistent? Such that if you change them, the settings will be saved? Both when spawning a new group of the same aircraft, and when restarting DCS? Right now, when opening DCS or spawning another aircraft, they reset to default unless copied from an existing aircraft. Having them persistent would save just a little bit more time when making missions, as I would only need to set them once and then if I need to edit them, I only need to edit the things I desire (for instance, laser codes). Just to provide some examples: In the Hind I never fly with external dust protection () IR supressors and I always have NVGs and the NS430 disabled (though not sure why the latter is even present). In the Hip I again never fly with the IR supressors or with the NS430. In the F-5E-3 I always run the same countermeasure programs. In the Mirage 2000C I always disable the TAF GCI link. In the Tomcat I always set the gun burst selection to manual. In the Viggen I always set the weapon safety height to low. But because it isn't persistent and the default settings aren't always what I want, I have to edit all of these every single time I create a new group or start DCS. The only time they copy over is when I copy a group, or add units to a group where I've already set them as desired. Alternatively (if there isn't already), is there a way where we can configure what the default settings are set to? Even if it's via some .lua file.
-
- 2
-
- mission editor
- settings
-
(and 2 more)
Tagged with:
-
Hi everyone, Would it be possible to implement Link 4A/ACLS for the Forrestal? Right now only CVN 71-75 have it present. I'm guessing that for non-owners of the supercarrier it would use the simplified implementation and for the owners, the more advanced implementation.
-
Hi everyone, Very pleased that the AN/FPS-117 has made it to DCS (finally our first western EWR!), though I do have a request for it. At the moment there are 2 mounting options which are treated as 2 separate units: there's one on a tower and one inside a radome. Firstly: would it be possible to have the mounting options be selectable from the additional properties menu, much like configuration settings for the land rovers and several other vehicles? Instead of being 2 unique units. Secondly, for the ECS would it be possible to have it just mounted on the ground (so just the ECS container), and have the platform be a static object? (Ground units will be placed onto static objects as is). Thirdly, would it be possible to have the tower the base AN/FPS-117 is mounted on be a static object? Allowing it to be used for other purposes (such as a raised AAA platform).
- 2 replies
-
- 1
-
- an/fps-117
- ewr
-
(and 3 more)
Tagged with:
-
Be able to add static objects in a group, it will provide the ability to move all the groups within the map
- 5 replies
-
- 6
-
- mission editor
- grouping
-
(and 2 more)
Tagged with: