Training with BLUE on BLUE

[REDEYE_CVW-66]

I tried to set up a training scenario with Western aircraft flying against western AC with aggressor colour schemes. (Would be cool to have with Nevada also)

 

However, it seems that the mission builder will not allow this.

 

Am I missing something?

[joeafman]

Thats an easy fix! move the aggressor skins to be used by russia. Think of it as a simulated Blue Vs OPFOR Its currently impossible to have Blue Vs Blue in that sense.

[Exorcet]

It's an unfortunate limitation that makes the aggressor skins sadly almost useless. If you don't want to edit files, you can the F-15 as an Israeli and set the US to the enemy side, or something like that.

[NineLine]

Make a bug report in the bug forums, list what skins you think should be on the Russian side for this and me or someone else can report it to ED.

[Exorcet]

Make a bug report in the bug forums, list what skins you think should be on the Russian side for this and me or someone else can report it to ED.

It's too easy for ideas like this to fall to being half done. The skin swap is a good idea, but I think aggressors should be their own faction ideally.

 

Would it be worth putting in a bug report about the aggressors being linked to their home nation? I'd propose as a solution creating an Aggressors "nation", like the insurgents, which have access to pretty much all the units. Possibly multiple nations. Then I'd copy, not only switch, the skins to those new sides. If this is not a jump in difficulty of a skin swap, do you think this is a reasonable suggestion for a solution? I think it is more flexible than the skin swap.

[NineLine]

Sure, I could do that, might be something they could do for NTTR, I'll ask about it.

[Exorcet]

OK, thanks. I think when ideas like this come up they need a bit of discussion first. Otherwise you end up solving the initial problem, but you create new problems for the new feature, or just glaring inconvenient omissions.

[Flagrum]

It's too easy for ideas like this to fall to being half done. The skin swap is a good idea, but I think aggressors should be their own faction ideally.

 

Would it be worth putting in a bug report about the aggressors being linked to their home nation? I'd propose as a solution creating an Aggressors "nation", like the insurgents, which have access to pretty much all the units. Possibly multiple nations. Then I'd copy, not only switch, the skins to those new sides. If this is not a jump in difficulty of a skin swap, do you think this is a reasonable suggestion for a solution? I think it is more flexible than the skin swap.

Two new "nations": "Blue" and "Red".

 

Or ... hrm, how does LN implement their "Southaria" and "Northaria" (sp??) factions for their campaign?

[REDEYE_CVW-66]

Awesome that this generated some interest:)

 

The "faction" mode would make the most sense- as US agressor squadrons fly mostly western aircraft with Eastern paintjobs.

 

For Nevada, this would make a hell of a lot of sense- as well as giving a good excuse for immersion buffs like me to fly with the agressor skin:)

 

Hope ED picks up on it- I am sure they have already thought something along those lines with Nevada looming.

[Weta43]

To the OP.

If you just want to practice getting your guns on him, set a friendly (aggressor) at some distance & set the task to follow you. He'll try to get behind you, you try to get behind him.

Not quite the same as actual combat, but you don't have to re-spawn if he catches you :)

[Demongornot]

I think we should not just having two nation but the possibility in the game to create groups, such as Blue or OPFOR, in a war their is never just two side + neutrals, their is a side, resistance, others country that can be not really allied or enemy but that will just try to defend themselves, which can make them fight against the BLUE for example but if the OPFOR start trying to invade them, they will join OPFOR fight, without really being BLUE, for a WW for example, their is country that is not neutral, they fight, but its hard to say...

 

Look at actually, Ukraine being invaded by Russian, USA and European country are against this idea, but both Russia and USA are for example together against North Korea, still that North Korea are allied with China...

North Korea are "friend" with Iran...

 

In conflict their is NEVER just two sides and neutrals betweens, its always more complicated than this...

 

I think we should be able to create our own "factions" in plus of Blue ORFOR and Neutrals, we can with this create a complex war scenario and be free to create BLUE Aggressor and OPFOR Aggressor.

 

In fact the we should also add the "training" task which allow AI aircraft to use training weapon on ground target (both real or training weapon, cause their IS training with real weapons) and dogfight in SAFE mode which they just count as a kill when they "virtually" shoot missile at us at the right angle or gun in a good position.

 

And new radio options :

_One for when we get "kill", we state that we "comeback to the arena", the AI will wait for us in economic flight for safe fuel and will engage us again when we state that we comeback.

_One for when we shoot missile on the target aircraft, he will simply flight away in a correct distance (not too far, enough to engage again the fight) and told us when he become aggressor again.

_One for when we shoot with gun.

_One for AG hit, both inert charge or weapon that stay on stations.

_One for when we are ready to start the training flight in itself, and state in the radio menu distance options for say how far the AI will get away before head again on us.

_One for end the training flight.

 

Of course also possibility for huge training such as RedFlag, possibility to set aircraft to land, refuel/rearm and take off again to comeback to his task, in fact this should be available not only for training !

 

Cause in RedFlag (for example) aircraft that get virtually kill land and take off again.

By the way option for Touch and Go is missing for AI or for the tower !

 

 

With all my idea combines, we can create a really flexible bench of possibility, mainly for training, it will be useful for those who want realism AND practice dogfight without having to respawn or for those who like realism have to restart mission or wait idk how many time to fight again.

And training flight that both allow practicing for combat AND things such as handling/formation flight (including a valid task value for those aerobatic server which are the most populated one) and others aspect like this.

 

I fact i'm surprised that training are not a important part of DCS, first cause its a really complex sim that need practice and who look to be realist as possible, so we need to train, in fact after testing Falcon 4.0 (AF) i was disappointed to see that our first SAM evasion training was with...Real missiles...

But also i'm surprised that this is not on the sim simply cause of we look at what actually pilot do...Most of the pilot do more training than anything else, in fact some pilots have probably never be deployed and have never do anything else than training mission and except drone and others practice target, have never shoot anything....

 

Training is not a "toy" or a simple forgettable aspect of aviation, its what military pilot do the most and without it, their is no pilot at all, its an important aspect which should be proprietary over a lot of others things !