Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'units'.
Found 10 results
-
Hi everyone, It seems that units (at least amphibious ones) can now be spawned on the decks of ships, including ships that are moving, and will stay put through turns and speed changes (previously when I had tested this, they would spawn at the sea surface, requiring them to be jumped onto ships, though the mission editor restriction still restricts you from placing non-amphibious units onto ships). However, if you use CA to take control of a unit placed on a ship, it will immediately start floating upwards. It's almost as if the unit is being abducted by aliens or something. On the Tarawa at least, they appear to come to a stop and level out at 288 ft MSL and continue to follow the ship (albeit not exactly in the same place and orientation). But it gets weirder still - if you switch to another unit, other members of the group may start doing some other weird things. In the tracks below, when player control is relinquished to another unit, the remaining units in the group fly off of the deck and start travelling in unexpected directions, behaving quite oddly (drifting, jumping around, appearing to snap between pitch angles). GroundUnitsTarawa.trk GroundUnitsTiconderoga1.trk GroundUnitsTiconderoga2.trk -
Currently objects in the LUA scripting environment have a getDesc() method that returns various information about the object in question. In the case of Units I would like to propose an additional attributes, specifically the units maximum engagement and sensor ranges (the numbers that inform the red/yellow circles on the F10 map/in the editor basically), enagement range information is somewhat available for missiles through getAmmo() but the same info is not present for ballistic weapons, and in the case of detection range getSensors() works for specific sensors but returns nil for any units that dont have any sensors beyond the mk1 eyeball. This would allow much more dynamic and interesting behaviour from scripts without having to independently maintain this information or load it as part of the scripts in question
-
I often spend most of my time making missions and I would just like to make suggestions for units to be added. Artillery: Australia, Canada, Colombia, India, Saudi Arabia, Ukraine, and the United States: M777 Howitzer 155mm (Modern 2000-present) ________________________________________________________________________________ Soviet Russia/Russia, and many many other countries from South Africa to Asia, Vietnam war to current: M46 130mm (1951-Present): ________________________________________________________________________________ United States, South and North America, Middle Eastern and South Eastern Countries, used in Vietnam war to present conflicts M114 155mm (1942-present): _________________________________________________________________________________ NOTE: In order to make them mobile, some sort of animation will be needed where a truck could hitch up an artillery piece and tow it, this would also make for more interesting scenarios for convoys but as a start can do without mobility ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ground launch ATGM (Stationary Units): United States and many others, BGM-71 TOW, from Vietnam War to present (1970-present): _________________________________________________________________________________ Soviet Russia and many others, 9K111 Fagot, from Vietnam War to present (1970-present): Note: It would be interesting to have troops able to deploy these ATGM Launchers in the field after getting to their destination ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Yes this is a game/sim for aircraft, but I reckon most players spend their time doing air to ground then any other in DCS, more cold war aircraft are coming out and these units I suggested I tried to aim for a cold war setting to add life the those dates. In Mission Editor for the Towed Artillery and ATGM Launchers, it would be great to have a box to tick to weather or not have a semi circle wall of sandbags as a defence. Picture below with the Artillery or ATGM firing from behind it.
-
Trying to work out if the ground/area is suitable for a unit/building/base in a top down flat 2d representation of a map in 2022/2023 is beyond lunacy. I get we're dealing with a legacy mission editor, but this needs a significant overhaul and bringing up to date. -
Dear Eagle Dynamics, is it pland, that FARPS, TENTS, TRUCKS, TANKS, ... get new skins for presets in the DCS-Editor? As a Missionplaner an Missionmaker i miss following TENT-SKINS: - Desert camo - Desert camo with medic cross - Desert camo with numbers (01, 02, 03, 04, ...) - Green camo with medic cross - Green camo with numbers (01, 02, 03, 04, ...) - White with Medic cross - White with blue UN - White with numbers (01, 02, 03, 04, ...) - Tents for Insurgents Different Tents with different sizes. TENTS as Units not as Building to get it in a group for better handling with Triggers. I miss wounded and civil Units at all. You have no civil units to embarc or for Missions like "Avoid civil victims" I miss single Helipads with medic cross. I miss TRUCKS and TANKS with white color and blue UN signs. I miss Medic-Trucks at all. I miss JATAC-Infantery-Unit with Laser, Smoke and IR. I know you can get this with mods, but this has to be in DCS without mods, i think. If you want to make good and realistic HELI-Missions this is absolutly necessary. Cause than yo can say: "Embarc troop from Marker and bring it to Farp XXX to the Tent number 01" Or yo can say:" Embarc the wounded and bring them to the Medic-Tent. Smoke as marker is unrealistic big an Flags ar not good to see. I know, making skins for PLANES, HELICOPTERS, TANKS, ... is hard work and costs a while, but I think, making skins for TENTS and bring them in DCS (basic) without mod is a work of 20 Hours or less. I know this is primarily for Heli Pilots/Player who want to make realistic Missions but it is worth it. So is this planed? How long will it take? If not, Why? Thank you.
-
Since we now have a very beautiful and great sounding P Hind and the old unit is the same helicopter I would've liked it to sound the same. It have always been generic and boring and unauthentic, and there is no reason why you shouldn't update it. Hope ED sees this Also for some reason it's startup sequence audi is very broken atm, cuts off when engines are starting
-
- 2
-
-
- mission editor
- ai
- (and 2 more)
-
Hi everyone, Something I've never been satisfied with is how DCS names units in the unit listing. It often doesn't use full names, or specific variants, won't include things like NATO reporting names, or even occasionally gets the name wrong. 2.7 did change things a lot, and it largely made things a bit more consistent, but for me it still missed a few things and in some cases it changed for the worse IMO. What I was in the process of doing, is editing the default .lua files in the database folder of DCS and changing the display names I was then going to bundle them into a folder for a mod, and see what people thought of it. Unfortunately in 2.7, all of those files got hidden and so I'm now unable to do that. At the moment I've only done the ground and naval units, and for English localisation. I'm pretty much okay with the aircraft as they are, and if I were to make any changes they'd be more minor. The only other one I was going to do is the weapons so it's a bit tidier and more consistent, but I'm going to gauge that on this thread. Another thing I might do is propose a change to the sub categories too, but I'll leave that to a new thread. I still might tinker around with it, so watch this space for edits, what I currently have in mind is rearranging NATO reporting names and native names for ships, as well as putting the approximate year the ship is a representation of. Anything I've marked with a square bracket and a number is in the spoiler below. I know this is a very nitpicky, rivet-counter-esque request, but let me know what your thoughts on it are, do you like what I've done and prefer it? Do you prefer the current system? Do you prefer the old system? Is there anything you'd do differently? And of course, if you notice any mistakes, please let me know and I'll make an edit. Rename Overhaul (Ground and Naval Units) v.1.xlsx
-
There are so many cool animated units out there in DCSW, would be nice to have access to those animations. Maybe even via triggers. Examples of use: - Place a tank with opened upper hatch, to drop a tv guided Mav right in there, etc. - Build scene with units in different animation sates. Is it possible via lua scripts?
-
Hi everyone, At the moment there's a restriction in the editor that ensures that non-amphibious ground units can only be placed on the ground - this makes a lot of sense but it does cause a couple of issues: Firstly, on the Channel Map, there's a fortification on the coast near Ambleteuse (Fort Mahon/Fort d'Ambleteuse: 50°48'19"N, 001°36'02"E), which I would like to place things like artillery on (there's enough space for it). However, DCS treats most of the area the fort occupies as water, which means you can't place any non-amphibious units there, despite the fact that amphibious vehicles (which this restriction doesn't apply to) spawn as expected with no issues. It's the same when placing units on static objects (such as the oil and gas platforms), you can only place amphibious units onto them, even though they'll spawn where they should - which means you can't really set up something like a WW2 sea fort (using the oil rig/gas platform as a stand-in). And it's the same situation with non-aircraft carrying ships, you can't place anything that isn't a linked static object or amphibious onto them. Unfortunately though, this time around amphibious vehicles don't spawn as expected, they spawn where you placed them, but in the water and not up on deck, however, if you take an amphibious unit, place it on an oil rig or a gas platform, you can jump it over to a ship (that can be moving), and it will work (mostly) with a few issues that I'll detail below but are not the focus of this thread. Personally, I'd prefer to have the feature turned off (or be made optional), and place the responsibility solely with whoever is making the mission to place units sensibly. As an addendum, this feature might also be useful for placing client/player aircraft exactly as desired on board ships, see this post for more details. M113_Tarawa_Jump.trk
- 11 replies
-
- 4
-
-
- units
- mission editor
- (and 1 more)
-
Hi everyone, Would it be possible for the P-37 [Bar Lock-B] and PRV-11 [Side Net] radars to be implemented in DCS as fully functional units? At the moment these 2 are among the best looking radars in DCS, they've been around for quite some time and are both appropriately animated. Both radars were/are very prolific, widely exported and are staple radars of the Cold War. The PRV-11 would also make for additional battery component (even if non-functional) for some of our single-digit SAMs (namely the SA-2 and SA-3) and the P-37 would be a much more appropriate acquisition/search radar for the SA-5, certainly far more appropriate than the P-19 or 5N59S. This, in addition to serving as an EWR/GCI radar, which is what it's best known for. The RSP-7 [Two Spot] and DRL-7 are also appropriately animated, although these would probably require an ATC upgrade to really be useful as the RSP-7 is a PAR and PAR approaches is not something that DCS currently supports. Though I'd still argue for their inclusion into the unit list regardless (alongside their other components - a generator and a radio antenna), even if purely cosmetic. The thing is, air defence radars, particularly early-warning and long-range surveillance radars are something that IMO, is severely lacking in DCS. Personally, it's a real shame that radars that are incredibly prolific and widely exported, that would fit a couple of our SAM systems and quite a few maps (present and in-development) are non-functional eye-candy, despite models being present and in the right format.
