mission editor delay takeoff of bandits

[zoot]

the search function is not cooperating with me, can anyone tell me if it is possible to delay the takeoff of aircraft for a set amount of time...

 

or in the alternative how to make non fighter AC takeoff when a player AC gets close [i assume you can make fighter AC set to cap or intercept take off when a threat enters the area -correct me if I'm wrong here]

[Colt40Five]

To set takeoff time, select the flight, select waypoint 0, set to takeoff. You will see a time below that. Edit the time to whatever you want it to be.

 

As far as takeoff for interception of a specific threat you can place an EWR and set a flight to GAI (will only be one icon on airbase no waypoints) and then when the threat is detected the flight is launched. Someone else can probably be more specific about ranges etc. I haven't used it much.

[zoot]

thanks, I saw the time entry many times, but I never thought to try to edit that, I thought it was information only

 

thanks again

[Gunja]

Might be easyer with a screenshot

 

[zoot]

Gunja,

thanks for the screenshot!

 

[i had figured it out right away, but i'm sure there are others who that screenshot will help]

[Gunja]

I actualy started to write, but decided to go in and take a shot. When i posted i saw that Colt wrote how to.

(didnt wont to insult your inteligence, was just too slow on respond)

 

cheers ;)

[Weta43]

With GAI - any EWR or AWAC will cause the units on GAI to see enemy aircraft anywhere on the map & chase them. If EWR & AWAC are left out then GAI works properly & waits till bandits come within 60km of their airbase then take off.

[Ironhand]

With GAI - any EWR or AWAC will cause the units on GAI to see enemy aircraft anywhere on the map & chase them. If EWR & AWAC are left out then GAI works properly & waits till bandits come within 60km of their airbase then take off.

Which of course begs the question of how they know you're 60km away without any radar to tell them. At one time--in a very early iteration of this sim series--if there was no radar present, GAI flights didn't launch until you were WVR of the airbase. That used to be fun.

 

Rich

[Weta43]

Air Traffic control ?

 

The secret encrypted AI only data from all those radar dishes that spin endlessly at every airbase on the map, but never prompt the tower to give hapless humans any warning even when someone is about to shoot you up on the runway.

[enigma6584]

At one time--in a very early iteration of this sim series--if there was no radar present, GAI flights didn't launch until you were WVR of the airbase. That used to be fun.

 

Rich

 

I remember that. It was really well implemented and it forced you to really pay attention to how you flew your own aircraft in order to try and remain undetected from enemy radar etc. I miss that. I wonder what happened to the sim?

[Weta43]

"I wonder what happened to the sim?"

 

It may have been more fun that way, but surely less realistic. I can't imagine that you could realy fly undetected up to WVR of a military airfield on alert status - especially not in the Crimea - unless you did it while collecting grass in your intakes. 60km seems arbitrary & if ATC can tell GAI why can't they tell me, but better than WVR. A work around like the EWR giving fire control to artillery, but as with that better than not having anything.

[Ironhand]

I remember that. It was really well implemented...I wonder what happened to the sim?

It became Flanker 2 and much of that modeling disappeared. At least I remember it being lost in Flanker 2. I could be wrong but I remember it being long gone by the time LOMAC arrived. The other thing that was nice back then--though implemented in a very simplistic way--was that aircraft with different tasks reacted to your presence differently. Setting an AI flight to CAP vs Fighter Sweep vs Escort made a difference.

 

It may have been more fun that way, but surely less realistic. I can't imagine that you could realy fly undetected up to WVR of a military airfield on alert status - especially not in the Crimea - unless you did it while collecting grass in your intakes...

 

True enough. But I'm not sure the present scenario is any more realistic... an all seeing and knowing AI. At least the WVR wrinkle made the AI seem fallible and more human.

 

Rich

[Weta43]

I don't know if this is quite what you mean, but after doing some testing someone a couple of days ago went through & listed the ranges at which the variously tasked aircraft would stray off course to attack enemy aircraft that was not set up as a target. Apparently they still react differently to that extent.

[enigma6584]

The other thing that was nice back then--though implemented in a very simplistic way--was that aircraft with different tasks reacted to your presence differently. Setting an AI flight to CAP vs Fighter Sweep vs Escort made a difference.

 

Rich

 

LOL...yeah I remember that too. Quite a while back I posted a question here regarding whether it matters or not in how you set the AI flight in a mission and does that setting determine how they react to you....or is it just a very simplistic way of keeping track of weapon loadouts? If I remember correctly, I never really did get an answer so I assumed it did not matter anymore.

 

Anyway, to reiterate, that is why I had asked that question; because I had remembered you could do this way back when and the AI did react differently then depending on whether you gave them CAP or Fighter Sweep etc. etc. It was much easier IMHO back then to create more dynamic missions than what you can do with the current LOMAC.

[Ironhand]

I don't know if this is quite what you mean, but after doing some testing someone a couple of days ago went through & listed the ranges at which the variously tasked aircraft would stray off course to attack enemy aircraft that was not set up as a target. Apparently they still react differently to that extent.

Really?? Hmmm...I'll have to take another look when I next have some spare time. Last I knew that wasn't the case. Sort of like SAM and AI a/c skill level no longer making any difference when it came to launching weapons. Haven't revisited that either since V1.12a.

 

Rich

[EvilBivol-1]

AI tasking does determine their behavior AFAIK.

[enigma6584]

AI tasking does determine their behavior AFAIK.

 

Really? Now that is indeed interesting. Could you explain further EvilBivol-1?

[Ironhand]

Really? Now that is indeed interesting. Could you explain further EvilBivol-1?

In case you haven't noticed it, there's this current topic: Aircraft Engaging Distance - Test Results . Did a quick run myself this evening and I came up with the same distances. Also discovered that there are once again differences in launch ranges depending on AI skill settings. Guess I should start building missions again so I'll notice this stuff.

 

Rich

[Andrew_McP]

It may have been more fun that way, but surely less realistic.

 

My god! Heaven forbid we should ever have *fun* in a sim! ;-)

 

Andrew McP

[Weta43]

I can't believe you would write that Andrew - How can you even include something as serious as Lockon's claims to realism & "Fun" in the same sentence?

[enigma6584]

In case you haven't noticed it, there's this current topic: Aircraft Engaging Distance - Test Results . Did a quick run myself this evening and I came up with the same distances. Also discovered that there are once again differences in launch ranges depending on AI skill settings. Guess I should start building missions again so I'll notice this stuff.

 

Rich

 

Actually I did not see that link, thanks. It is interesting and gets the imagination going with respect to creating missions. I'm going to have to do some tests on my own as well. Lately, I've actually been testing ground attack aircraft vs vehicle columns, trying to see how they react to one another in certain scenarios. I'm looking for how to set up a mission where one can get the AI on both sides to behave in a somewhat realistic manner when taking each other on.

 

First lesson I've learned from the tests; supported packages are a must! :)

[NEODARK]

I'll make it even better, LockOn is a GAME!! ;)

[EvilBivol-1]

'm looking for how to set up a mission where one can get the AI on both sides to behave in a somewhat realistic manner when taking each other on.

Controlling AI actions after the engagement starts is practically impossible. The best you can do is try to set up the circumstances which ultimately lead to the result you're after. Playing with tasks is one example. Setting the units up as a single group or seperate goups is another. The surrounding terrain is another. Ingress/IP heading and range is another... etc. But ultimately, ground unit AI is currently very limitied and uninteresting in their response to airborne attack. Maybe this will change soon...? ;)

[hitman]

[Andrew_McP]

I can't believe you would write that Andrew - How can you even include something as serious as Lockon's claims to realism & "Fun" in the same sentence?

 

Fun is not a dirty word.

 

I have always said that sims should have realistic hardware modelling, realistic flight models, and then the *flexibility* to allow us to do whatever we want with those aircraft.

 

Hardcore 100% realistic missions? Sure, if that's what lights your candle. But hardcore realism can be both challenging and dull as dishwater. Warfare is mostly boredom, repetetive training, planning, rather a lot of fear, and maybe a little excitement if you're lucky (or stupid). I've never wanted to fight in a real war, so I'm not after that "mostly boredom" in my virtual warfare either.

 

I appreciate ED's work, and the work of many other studios over the years. But constistently, time after time, hardcore realism has been pursued, forgetting the gameplay. So we end up with sims like Flanker/LOMAC which have *so* much potential, and yet fail to capture the imagination that lures us towards these amazing aircraft in the first place. Missions become problem-solving exercises, rather than involving "must try that again one more time to see what happens next" experiences.

 

Well, they do for me anyway. :-) Maybe I'm just shallow. I like a plot, I like a *reason* to learn how to use weapon X or aircraft Y. I like to feel my involvement is important, that this mission matters and to care whether I or my wingmen survive ready for the next mission... rather than wishing they'd hurry up and die so they stop doing annoying things.

 

Gamers (and we are gamers whether we prefer the word "sim" or not) are always hard to please, and it's a thankless task being a developer. But this genre has failed to fulfill its potential and struggles for publisher and public support for good reason IMO. It's about time we realised that our hardcore demands are part of the problem, not the solution, and until gameplay becomes the focus rather than adding aircraft or higher res models, or whatever else is in vogue this week, nothing will change.

 

Now, about that AFM for the Flanker... ;-)

 

Andrew McP

 

PS I want to emphasise the fact that I appreciate what ED do for us. But although I've had my imagination captivated by many games in many genres over the years, it's been a long, long time since a flight sim sucked me in and had me rushing home from work to squeeze in a bit of flying... to push the campaign along a little, or to experiment with tactics.

 

Perhaps I'm just jaded, I'm prepared to accept that. But a *major* upgrade to LOMAC's mission editor and AI would go a long way towards giving us a tool to create interesting and involving combat scenarios, even without making the leap towards a dynamic campaign. I believe there is hope that will happen, eventually, which is why I stick around and get what pleasure I can from a sim which frustrates me as much as it entertains.