SU-33 Heavy Sky campaign delete it

[Ironhand]

...Seems to me that any AI aircraft taking off from pos 1 and 2 don't seem to leave the ramp at any different speed other than approx (132kph) whether the carrier speed is at 0km or 59kph, so that doesn't make sense to me, not changing plane thrust and wind settings and carrier stationary, then 132kph is generated by plane alone, if you you change the speed of carrier to 59kph, then plane will be traveling at same 59kph just sitting on the deck, when it rolls it should be able to generate an extra 132kph, giving at total of 191kph, or does the virtual wind created negate the 59kph of carrier ??

As far as IAS is concerned, the carrier's speed is causing air to move over the wing at that speed (50 km/h at full speed). If you add a headwind of 10 m/s (36 km/h), that wind's speed should be added to the wind over the wing. So before you even begin rolling, your IAS is 86. Then you add your rolling speed as you accelerate. If you reach 132 km/h before you leave the ramp, your IAS would be 218. This is how it works for the human pilot and what makes it possible to actually get airborn from the forward position with a gross weight of 29,500 kg.

 

The AI and your aircraft, as you note, react differently. In one scenario I set up, I leave the deck with an IAS of 171. Saved the track and altered the track to make my aircraft into the AI. The AI left the deck with an IAS of of only 123. They were roughly 50 km/h underspeed for the identical situation.

 

As a side note, I noticed that, while stationary on the deck, my IAS was 43. The AI's OTOH was 50 (which, BTW, actually seems to be the carrier's top speed despite what the ME says).

 

I wouldn't spend a lot of time altering missions just yet.

Edited September 26, 2017 by Ironhand

[MadDog-IC]

Btw, is this because in real life Kuznetsov could not gain its maximum speed due to some troubles with engines (as i've heard, it was the case in the beginning of 2017)?

 

Haven't come across anything of that nature.

[m4ti140]

One thing I noticed is that all ships in the task group will slow down to the max speed of the slowest vessel in the group, so you might want to remove any supply ships from the group.

 

Also I can confirm that the AI seems to leave the ramp at 130-135 kph from the front stations regardless of the conditions.

[Ironhand]

One thing I noticed is that all ships in the task group will slow down to the max speed of the slowest vessel in the group, so you might want to remove any supply ships from the group.

 

DUH! :doh: Of course!

[MadDog-IC]

The Su-33 AI taking off problem is resolved with the dcs v1.57.10175 patch, the only thing that will make them crash into ocean on takeoff, is if the Kuznetzov carrier isn't steaming at 50km/h or thereabouts (I didn't test all speeds).

 

I have updated the Su-33 Heavy Sky campaign on the ED DCS files section that incorperate all of the correct take-off parameters:

 

1. Ship speed and direction into wind.
   
2. Wind speed and direction.
   
3. Flight fuel and missile loadouts didn't need to be changed (ED waved their magic wand and gave the planes extra takeoff weight of approx 30000-33000kg).
   

 

 

19-11-2017 Update:

 

1. Some short flights fuel load changed to (80% or less to ease takeoff weight of approx 30000-31000kg).
   
2. Placed some IL-78 tankers in some long missions to help with extra fuel, on return leg of sortie.
   
3. Multiple small fixes here and there.
   
4. Tested that a player can actually take off from carrier with assigned payload of weapons and fuel.
   
5. Mission 14 - made a bit easier against F-14a, hope it isn't to easy.
   
6. Mission 25 - fixed the refueling grading so that it allows for multiple premature disconnects and reconnects, however you need to stay connected for a solid 2 minutes in one take to pump (40% more fuel), need some one to test that for me as I can't stay connected for that long with my meager skills.
   
7. I think this is the final version now, re-Uploaded to the ED User files section as listed in previous posts.
   

Regards, Ian.

Edited November 22, 2017 by MadDog-IC
Revisited the SU-33 Heavy Sky Campaign, updated a few missions.

[skliff13]

The Su-33 AI taking off problem is resolved with the dcs v1.57.10175 patch, the only thing that will make them crash into ocean on takeoff, is if the Kuznetzov carrier isn't steaming at 50km/h or thereabouts (I didn't test all speeds).

 

Indeed! AI's finally manage to take off.

Quick tests suggest that minimum Kuznetsov's speed for successfull takeoff is about 40 kph (no wind). At 40 kph both me and all AI's can take off from positions #1 and #2 with full load. At 30 kph both me and AI at position #2 failed.

[Ironhand]

...At 40 kph both me and all AI's can take off from positions #1 and #2 with full load. At 30 kph both me and AI at position #2 failed.

Out of curiousity...At what gross weight?

[skliff13]

Out of curiousity...At what gross weight?

 

32 633 kg, I guess.

[skliff13]

Conerning the campaign.

The proposed scoring logic, for example, doesn't seem to be suitable here. At least because it denies the requirement of landing for successfull image landing, though this requirement is mentioned in campaign description.

 

For example, in mission #6 it is:

Start + F-15c DEAD + FA-18c DEAD + Land = 50 + 15 + 15 + 50

Which means that you can destroy only one enemy group and immediately end mission with 65 scores which is considered as success.

[skliff13]

Overall missions design originally made by ED... It makes me cry. I don't know how AI's behaved years ago when the campaign was first introduced, but now throwing 4 x Su-33 against 4 x F-16 AI's seems pretty hardcore. Especially considering permament troubles with contacts visibility in DCS 1.5 (AI's don't have such troubles!). IMHO throwing the player against outperforming enemies spamming out AIM-120's and Phoenixes in each and every mission makes the campaing too difficult and exhausting for an average player.

In contrast, official paid campaigns I played (F-16 Red Flag, Su-27 Ultimate argument, F-16 Georgian Campaing) are completely different with this respect.

 

These are my thoughts. What do you guys think?

Edited October 3, 2017 by skliff13

[MadDog-IC]

Conerning the campaign.

The proposed scoring logic, for example, doesn't seem to be suitable here. At least because it denies the requirement of landing for successfull image landing, though this requirement is mentioned in campaign description.

 

For example, in mission #6 it is:

Start + F-15c DEAD + FA-18c DEAD + Land = 50 + 15 + 15 + 50

Which means that you can destroy only one enemy group and immediately end mission with 65 scores which is considered as success.

 

Whilst I see your point and know that you can't fail the missions per say if you shoot down at least one enemy flight, this was a design of my making, as it depends on your out look, personally I find it very demoralizing as would a beginner pilot, to play half, two thirds the way through a mission and be shown that you have not accomplished anything of the assigned tasks (Goal of 50% still), I much prefer the player to see the contribution they are making through out the missions and to get the ultimate (Goal of 100%) if the do all that was asked of them, including the landing (Which ultimately shows a fully completed mission).

 

I can only work within the confines of the campaign editor, if you do it your way people complain, that if they don't do everything perfectly they have to re-fly the mission or go back a mission and possibly never advance to the next mission.

 

Do it my way, they complain that they can't re-fly the same mission if they don't achieve the full mission complete (Goals of 100%), but they do advance to the next mission.

 

As with any war, when has all the plans ever worked out exactly the way they wanted it to, doesn't necessarily make the missions a failure if you don't achieve every single objective, you do your best and hope you small battle contributes to winning the war, you don't get to re-fly a mission just because you failed every objective.

 

I see the goals scoring as a performance evaluation as it measures your capability to following orders as instructed, you get (50) for turning up in the plane, (15) for each enemy flight you shoot down, and (20) if you return home and land safely.

 

As in real life, if you died in combat after shooting down the 2 flights of fighters you might be regarded as a hero, not a failure, your effort is still recorded.

 

Their will always be different ways of doing things, in the end you have to choose one, it will never please everyone.

 

Regards, Ian.

Edited October 3, 2017 by MadDog-IC

[MadDog-IC]

Overall missions design originally made by ED... It makes me cry.

 

These are my thoughts. What do you guys think?

 

I wouldn't disagree with you on any of your points, all my testing of any campaign missions I have repaired is done purely with the "Players aircraft" setup as AI with the appropriate commands to fly the missions as a real person would.

 

I do however notice how hard some of them are, but as I didn't make these missions originally, I don't want to change how the missions goals play out, I will sometimes make changes if it blatently ridiculous, but it was only ever about making sure all Briefings are accurate, Aircraft call-signs are correct, triggers work, radio commands work, messaging and voice overs work, mission goals scoring working, and all other issues that subsequently come about from subsequent patches, such as incorrect JTAC frequencies, Artillery fire at points not firing, pathing of vehicles not staying on road, and others to many to list.

 

I have fixed / modified hundreds of missions, at a cost of (Thousands of unpaid man hours), why because most of them never work properly, lacked messaging and or voice overs so the player never had a clue when things were happening or when they could use the radio to call in SEAD or RUNWAY, CAS strikes, also because like all other DCS users I want to actually fly missions that work correctly.

 

Regards, Ian.

[Rudel_chw]

I have fixed / modified hundreds of missions, at a cost of (Thousands of unpaid man hours) ... because like all other DCS users I want to actually fly missions that work correctly.

 

 

Just a short message to express my gratitude for all the effort that you've spent on fixing these missions ... and then sharing them with the community :) .. since most of us lack the ME skill for fixing them ourselves.

 

 

I've actually enjoyed several of them and intend to keep playing the ones that I havent flown yet, so, thanks a lot and I hope that you dont get discouraged by people that dont get how difficult it is to edit a good and challenging Mission.

 

 

Cheers,

 

 

:)

[MadDog-IC]

Just a short message to express my gratitude for all the effort that you've spent on fixing these missions ... and then sharing them with the community :) .. since most of us lack the ME skill for fixing them ourselves.

 

I've actually enjoyed several of them and intend to keep playing the ones that I haven't flown yet, so, thanks a lot and I hope that you don't get discouraged by people that don't get how difficult it is to edit a good and challenging Mission.

 

:)

 

Whilst it is nice for people to express their gratitude as you yourself have on multiple occations and also a lot of other users, I don't require or expect praise from others, I do what I do because I enjoy things working properly and know that the bulk of other flight sim fans will enjoy them.

 

What else am I going to do when some aspects of the DCS engine or my favourite aircraft module is so broken I can't fly it correctly in missions, I edit missions so when the former mentioned problems are eventually fixed I can fly the fixed missions knowing they are going to perform correctly.

 

I would also say, as much as I would like to write my own campaigns and make money from it, I am mostly incapable of such an endevour as I don't have an artistic bone in my body and don't wish to devote the amount of time required to write a plot line, research actual real life scenarios, learn correct military speak, learn real work applications of assets, and finally make the missions that use all that authentic based info.

 

So in general I never respond to outright negative comments, but constructive feedback on something you think is wrong or may need improving I will take onboard and talk about the pros and cons.

 

My work hasn't gone unnoticed and Eagle Dynamics have been more that generous with a non money form of renumeration, without that there would have been no FC-3 Campaign fixes at all.

 

Regards, Ian.

[skliff13]

...

Their will always be different ways of doing things, in the end you have to choose one, it will never please everyone.

 

Sure! I agree on everyting said :) This scoring mechanics may take place of course. I just noticed that it doesn't quite match current campaing description - maybe it's worth to simply remove one sentence from description then :smilewink:

 

I wouldn't disagree with you on any of your points, all my testing of any campaign missions I have repaired is done purely with the "Players aircraft" setup as AI with the appropriate commands to fly the missions as a real person would.

 

Thank you again for all the great job done, and also thanks for sharing your thoughts.

 

Potentially constructive note

Once I've already edited some similar campaign for myself to make it more playable. I tried two things: (1) slight reduction of AI skill level (by one degree); (2) reduction of number of aircraft in all flights (for both sides). Thus, instead of 4v4 engagements i got 2v2 which made it a lot easier for a player to control the situation and stay alive whilst preserving balance of forces and keeping missions enough challenging. And this kinda worked out for me - it was fun to play such campaign.

 

If this sounds like a good idea for someone else except me - I can edit several of missions (or the whole campaign if it really makes things better) in such a way by myself. Such changes do not influence any triggers since no flights are removed from missions - only numbers of aircraft per flight are changed.

[BlusterJet]

In Heavy Sky mission 18 You must do a Fighter sweep of carrier launched f-18s. I killed all the f-18s that launched but one remains on the ramp, and the carrier defenses kill me when I move in to try to kill it with rockets or guns. I assume this is the reason I am unable to finish the mission. Is there a fix to this?