Cold War 1947 - 1991

[rossmum]

13 hours ago, Sideburns said:

I mean, if we had an actual cold war Ka-50 or Vikhr missile... you get the point, this argument is bit of a slippery slope.

 

It isn't if I've been advocating removal of both Ka-50 and Su-25T for quite a long time now.

 

e/ Hadn't seen that chart, but you're right - so the actual limit is number of Rb 75 (no more than 2) coupled with an apparent need for at least one of them to be on a fuselage pylon. Wonder how come, the pylons must've been wired for them but you would think in that case, SAAB would add another loadout setting for 2 75/2 24. Maybe they just ran out of memory and had to prioritise.

Edited June 12, 2021 by rossmum

[BonerCat]

nvm, i can't read

Edited June 13, 2021 by BonerCat

[Alpenwolf]

Just now, BonerCat said:

What about the mavs? It's the bread and butter for guided A/G for the viggen, and often the only way to quickly deal with longer ranged threats for bluefor.

 

- Mav's are alright, however, limited in numbers. You've got the A-10 with Mav's.

- When the Su-17 arrives all Su-25T's will be out and actually they are out of most missions as of now.

- The Ka-50 will be removed from most missions. I think I wouldn't mind it in big missions such as Battle Over Sukhumi Unleashed, Prince of Persia, etc. Missions like Two Towns, Phone Booth, Open Range, etc. will have no Ka-50's once the Hind arrives.

[CORMAC ogaruu]

A commendable effort on all sides today in the Hold The Line mission. Even though the Reds won the day, the Blues were fierce and Reds got a really bloody nose. Good job everyone.

Sent from my SM-A715F using Tapatalk

[Sideburns]

17 hours ago, m4ti140 said:

Yes I would, and ALPEN said why that is the case just one post above yours: Viggen players ignore their mission and go furballing most of the time. Hence I'd go for either limiting them to 24s only or limiting them to outer hardpoints for air to air, the latter not being something that can be done now i any other way than using scripts to yeet them out of slot on take off if loadout is wrong. I'll argue for it even once HB fixes the bug. Unless some other way to force them to do air to ground is found, but with air to air combat happening around defended ground targets anyway the only way I can think off is to enforce air to ground load out in much the same way as limiting air to air to outer pylons - not ideal.

Also your solution has two problems with it: it uses ground speed for reference (when IAS is needed) and uses absolute altitude (where pressure altitude is needed). The latter is a minor issue, the former is not. Having a speed/altitude block limit like this will be cancerous for players to avoid, because you don't reference ground speed when you fly, you reference IAS and Mach number. There will be accidental violations and people rightfully raging. It might be solvable using unit argument trigger though. Second, this does NOT remove the exploit, it only prohibits players from going too fast. They STILL have reduced drag and that has more consequences. I had trouble slowing down for landing, at higher AoAs, after this glitch would kick in. The aircraft would accelerate on final approach with gear down on flight idle without going to ground idle in the air. The acceleration is better, the drag is reduced throughout the entire envelope. You can negate drag from stores allowing you to reach clean config performance with air to ground weapons. Max speed is not the only performance gain, it's just the most blatant one.

 

One other solution would be to remove all Swedish weapons from all bases and limit Viggen to road bases only, without access to ground crew to change the loadout they spawn with. This way Alpen could give them mission specific loadout and force them to do mission specific stuff. One mission did that I think, but still included Viggens at main airbase.

 

I don't know what you did here, but be aware SET FAILURE does not work in MP. There's no way to script or trigger client specific failures in MP to my knowledge. Note that this trigger doesn't take unit as an argument, how exactly would it know who to trigger failures on?

 

You might want to look up what the J stands for in AJ-37 / AJS- 37. The Rb24j was removed in a major part due to exploitation of the speed issue so it seems harsh not to return it. But it is what it is and I do not intend to waste my time arguing balance when the agenda has been set. I do wonder if the MiG21 should be reviewed from the same perspective given its radar range and RWR bugs? (And I say this as someone currently flying and enjoying the MiG21!)

 

I'm glad we've arrived at, as I introduced it, a "rough fix" for the Viggen speed issue, the main complaint in this context, based on some clever use of triggers. I spent literally 10 minutes figuring out the simplistic triggers I posted, as presented it was intended as a stopgap measure / quick fix and I knew it was not a perfect mitigation. I am aware of how IAS, ground speed, air pressure etc work in this situation and how it applies to my original suggestion, hence why I called it a "rough fix" because it was rough. It is good to see Alpenwolf refine the original suggestion into the mitigation we have, but bear in mind we are limited by the mission editor tools available and time someone is willing to commit to this. I think having acceleration based controls in place would be quite a bit trickier than the speed controls implemented, probably extend into custom LUA scripting. I'm not sure it would be worth the effort based on your unconvincing concerns on acceleration. Lets see how this speed mitigation plays out.

 

Thanks to Alpenwolf for taking the original speed trigger suggestion seriously and working it through.

[NELLUS]

There could be a simple solution to the maxed out RB24J load out. 
A simple server rules pop up text for the Viggen pilots on startup, saying that a Max x2 RB24J’s are allowed per flight. If these guidelines are not followed then a gentle slap on the wrist should do the job. 

[Conker4]

The speed limit on the Viggen was a good idea in theory but in practice the Viggen can not go faster than mach 1.23 indicated at 30,000ft without the warning blaring at me... seems that ground speed is being used and not air speed.

 

Edited June 13, 2021 by Conker4

[Alpenwolf]

3 hours ago, NELLUS said:

There could be a simple solution to the maxed out RB24J load out. 
A simple server rules pop up text for the Viggen pilots on startup, saying that a Max x2 RB24J’s are allowed per flight. If these guidelines are not followed then a gentle slap on the wrist should do the job. 

 

Knowing the average DCS player you're putting a lot of faith into the hands of players to consider such text popping up on their screen.

 

21 minutes ago, Conker4 said:

The speed limit on the Viggen was a good idea in theory but in practice the Viggen can not go faster than mach 1.23 indicated at 30,000ft without the warning blaring at me... seems that ground speed is being used and not air speed.

 

 

 

IAS is what is used. If the trigger confuses that with something else then it's on how that trigger or option works, not me. I did say it wont be prefect but a limit is there nonetheless and that's what was necessary.

[Alpenwolf]

2 minutes ago, LoneS said:

The speed limit is perfect. It works for me and I was able to run away from bandits. I like how I was constantly monitoring my speed to avoid damaging the engine. That was an extra adrenaline kick Great job my man! Very clever idea. I tried to do the same in one of my singleplayer missions and the explosion ripped me apart. It didn't stop exploding. What am I doing wrong? Any idea?

 

I would strongly assume your trigger is set as a "Repetitive Action". "Switched Condition" is what you want.

[Admiral_ZIPANGU]

Quick question: when the Mi-24 is released, will this server be set up to allow crates to be transported?

[Conker4]

I look forward to the trigger for the mig-21 special afterburner destroying the engine after a short time of use 

Edited June 13, 2021 by Conker4

[Maxthrust]

45 minutes ago, Conker4 said:

I look forward to the trigger for the mig-21 special afterburner destroying the engine after a short time of use 

 

 

I see your point but by the time you realize you are doing 1400 kph in your -21 the engine starts winding down anyway. You can relight, but you will probably get shot down before you can regain energy and situational awareness. 

 

It is not our fault if HB is not fixing their planes.

[Conker4]

28 minutes ago, Maxthrust said:

 

I see your point but by the time you realize you are doing 1400 kph in your -21 the engine starts winding down anyway. You can relight, but you will probably get shot down before you can regain energy and situational awareness. 

 

It is not our fault if HB is not fixing their planes.

The point was mainly about the low - medium speed advantage this gives the plane... at least with this limitation there is no real argument to remove the rb-24j from the aircraft other than some bias. 

 

Alpen can do what he wants, I'm just adding my opinion.

 

The AJS is a multirole airframe, many of them built from the early AJ airframes, there is no reason this aircraft cant be a fighter. In addition to the typically low numbers of the aircraft I don't think this is an issue.

 

I have flown red countless times and never have I been frustrated by fighting a Viggen or seeing its effect on the fight.

[NELLUS]

2 hours ago, Alpenwolf said:

Knowing the average DCS player you're putting a lot of faith into the hands of players to consider such text popping up on their screen.

I’m sure the word would spread after a few whoopsies have been made. There is a bunch of us watching the battlefield almost daily, so pointing out a rule bender would not be that hard. Just an idea.   

[Conker4]

Just now, NELLUS said:

I’m sure the word would spread after a few whoopsies have been made. There is a bunch of us watching the battlefield almost daily, so pointing out a rule bender would not be that hard. Just an idea.   

or just spawn the aircraft with wingtip sidewinders and don't have any for rearm

[Alpenwolf]

3 hours ago, Admiral_ZIPANGU said:

Quick question: when the Mi-24 is released, will this server be set up to allow crates to be transported?

 

No. However, when infantries are one day more reliable there will be infantry transport only and the Mi-24 will carry some. Even Gazelles will be able to carry 1-2 troopers (probabaly a MANPAD and a machine gunner). And the "one day" is probably during 2021.

 

2 hours ago, m4ti140 said:

If you used the regular unit speed trigger, then it's not IAS, it's GS, that's why I had concerns with it.

 

I'll check it out tomorrow. I'm typing from a pc at work right now and it has no DCS installed ;-)

 

1 hour ago, Conker4 said:

The point was mainly about the low - medium speed advantage this gives the plane... at least with this limitation there is no real argument to remove the rb-24j from the aircraft other than some bias. 

 

Alpen can do what he wants, I'm just adding my opinion.

 

The AJS is a multirole airframe, many of them built from the early AJ airframes, there is no reason this aircraft cant be a fighter. In addition to the typically low numbers of the aircraft I don't think this is an issue.

 

I have flown red countless times and never have I been frustrated by fighting a Viggen or seeing its effect on the fight.

 

The speed limitation thing is one issue, carrying 6 x RB-24J's is another.

 

Bias?! So it's not that I'd rather have AJS37 pilots stick to their air to ground objectives?! And when the majority of them neglects that and ergo I'm forced to react in a way that's to you showing bias?!

 

The change had to be made and as always I take my time with such big changes and see how it plays out rather than jumping to random conclusions on why and how and this and that.

 

Give it time. No one said the RB-24J is out for ever. So, give it time.

 

1 hour ago, Conker4 said:

or just spawn the aircraft with wingtip sidewinders and don't have any for rearm

 

You can't do that if there are no RB-24J's included in an airbase's warehouse, unless it's placed on the airbase (or road) and not as part of it. And that would bring lots of trouble with it concerning majorly aircraft being limited in numbers, rearming issues, etc.

[Conker4]

30 minutes ago, Alpenwolf said:

 

No. However, when infantries are one day more reliable there will be infantry transport only and the Mi-24 will carry some. Even Gazelles will be able to carry 1-2 troopers (probabaly a MANPAD and a machine gunner). And the "one day" is probably during 2021.

 

 

I'll check it out tomorrow. I'm typing from a pc at work right now and it has no DCS installed

 

 

The speed limitation thing is one issue, carrying 6 x RB-24J's is another.

 

Bias?! So it's not that I'd rather have AJS37 pilots stick to their air to ground objectives?! And when the majority of them neglects that and ergo I'm forced to react in a way that's to you showing bias?!

 

The change had to be made and as always I take my time with such big changes and see how it plays out rather than jumping to random conclusions on why and how and this and that.

 

Give it time. No one said the RB-24J is out for ever. So, give it time.

 

 

You can't do that if there are no RB-24J's included in an airbase's warehouse, unless it's placed on the airbase (or road) and not as part of it. And that would bring lots of trouble with it concerning majorly aircraft being limited in numbers, rearming issues, etc.

All that is meant by bias is that you see the plane as an air to ground platform that has some AA rather than a multirole aircraft, that's all.

[GeneralMav24]

maybe rather than base it off limiting AAM numbers maybe require atleast 2 pylons have AG Missiles, Bombs, rockets, or maybe pods too  until flag for some objectives completed

with swedish delivery for an example could apply that to the viggen slots and not allow them to go without AG in alpha slots until objective Alpha is completed. 
only problem with a method like that is airframes getting destroyed

[Alpenwolf]

1 minute ago, Conker4 said:

All that is meant by bias is that you see the plane as an air to ground platform that has some AA rather than a multirole aircraft, that's all.

 

Multirole doesn't mean you can do with it whatever you want any time you want. For instance, the F-15E is a multirole aircraft. During the Gulf War it flew strike missions mainly. Why? Because it was assigned with such tasking. If you check out the briefing for the AJS37 in all my missions they're mainly assigned with taking out enemy ground units/buildings and sometimes ships. Can you do some air to air with it? SURE! Has it become ridiculous to the extent AJS37 pilots are doing MOSTLY air to air? YES. That's the whole point, hence the restrictions.

 

It's a public server and I'm not putting any password on it so obviously players can do whatever they want (within the server rules!) and they've been doing do for 7 years. Once in a while a specific behaviour becomes obtrusive in a way I'm forced to react to. This issue here is yet another example for such an obtrusive behaviour.

[Alpenwolf]

47 minutes ago, GeneralMav24 said:

maybe rather than base it off limiting AAM numbers maybe require atleast 2 pylons have AG Missiles, Bombs, rockets, or maybe pods too  until flag for some objectives completed

with swedish delivery for an example could apply that to the viggen slots and not allow them to go without AG in alpha slots until objective Alpha is completed. 
only problem with a method like that is airframes getting destroyed

 

Obviously you have no idea how much scripting knowledge that requires. There is nothing like it out there and certainly not a thing for users of the DCS mission editor.

Having ideas is not the problem, mate. Trust me, I'm full of them! Transforming them into actual practice however, is a mountain of a dizzy height to climb

[GeneralMav24]

1 minute ago, Alpenwolf said:

 

Obviously you have no idea how much scripting knowledge that requires. There is nothing like it out there and certainly not a thing for users of the DCS mission editor.

Having ideas is not the problem, mate. Trust me, I'm full of them! Transforming them into actual practice however, is a mountain of a dizzy height to climb

scripting part yea I got hardly any idea I just know triggers and all that really 

[rossmum]

21 yeet burner is what, 3 mins use, 30 seconds, then clear to use again? You're running down engine hours as you do it, but my understanding is the immediate limit is thermal. Don't think it's modelled (or honestly, any engine temp issues at all). I would love for DCS to model effective attrition loss through people flogging airframes and the maintenance guys having to tear them down for inspection, but it doesn't and probably never will, especially since most players seem to prefer reslotting over even waiting a whopping 3 minutes for a good-as-new repair. 3 mins continuous in E-burner seems unlikely anyway as unless you're just standing on your tail the whole time, you're either coming out of AB to avoid overspeeding the engine, coming out of AB to avoid overshooting, or coming out of AB to avoid bamboozling the ARU into letting you rip your wings. It should be modelled for sure but I don't think it would significantly change the situation, most people already throttle back enough to cool it or don't use it in the first place. I think it'd be another one of the things (like the SPS/AB inhibiting behaviour) that people think is actually a bug because it's so uncommon and they don't understand how they caused it.

 

RIP Zach though.

[Alpenwolf]

17 hours ago, m4ti140 said:

If you used the regular unit speed trigger, then it's not IAS, it's GS, that's why I had concerns with it.

 

Just checked. The trigger uses TAS and nothing else. I'll make some adjustments using the TAS trigger so it's 1400 kph indicated.

[MAXsenna]

 
Interesting to see so many players gave a like for this.
Seems like many agree with you and saw conker4 many times doing that.
And it's conker4 who's debating things here back and forth.........
You know what they say? It's always those who are the loudest

Well, one can always like a post even if one disagree, if it's a good debate. I do!

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

[MAXsenna]

 
Bro there is nothing to like about a comment if you don't agree with it. really? You think so many players gave him a like because there is something likable about it?! come on son. it's a like sign but dont take it only as a like is in liking something. come on son.
ok I remeber players talking about him online during one of the nights......

Okay didn't know that. But I was actually referring to him giving likes. But I probably misunderstood you. Apologies.
Nobody's been calling me "son" for years. Thanks!

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk