Cold War 1947 - 1991

[Mordants]

Folks, it was a great watch from a spectators viewpoint, the end battle with the red and blue tank was particularly tense, cat and mouse through the town. Great stuff! 

[rossmum]

The RPG troops also downed several helicopters, seems they're absolute crack shots with those things. I would definitely love to see more infantry - as far as I remember the main reason for its absence was to stop chain capturing in some missions? Maybe there'll be a way to address that at some point, or just make captured airfields not spawn any units in so that removing the inf to capture another will neutralise it again.

 

Before I forget - missiles. Any chance we can get Rb 05 (MCLOS air to ground, can be used for air to air but very very bad at it), RS-2US (hilariously bad beam-riding air to air), and R-55 (RS-2US with R-13 seeker) added to all missions next time you make changes to each? They're fun weapons to use because of how janky and unreliable they are, and won't significantly shift the way the missions play out. The only exception would be maybe the Rb 05 could knock over precision objectives a little faster, but it takes considerable skill to actually score hits with. Some more diversity in SAMs would be nice, too... maybe some shorter-ranged stuff like Osa or Roland? I'm not super knowledgeable on the latter, but the former are fairly easy to defeat if you know what you're doing while still providing reasonable cover to nearby objectives. So far the only place I've ever seen them on the server is at Kutaisi on Two Towns, which is a little odd, as it's very unlikely anything will get within 8km of the airbase as it is. More short-range units like those while trading out some Kubs and Hawks could be interesting in some missions, and give the helicopter guys more to play with.

 

On the topic of helicopters, I'm not sure if you've been given the heads-up yet, but some science was done and we've found that the CTLD issue where one unit spawns in place of another is caused by those units sharing the same "weight" in the CTLD settings. If you change the weight up or down even by a couple kilos, it should solve the problem. It might be worth looking into what other settings can be tinkered with as well, maybe to make things like Kubs only spawn one launcher per launcher crate, so multiple trips become more necessary and the poor Hueys aren't the only ones making 4 or so trips to set up a single battery.

Edited September 4, 2021 by rossmum

[Alpenwolf]

6 minutes ago, rossmum said:

The RPG troops also downed several helicopters, seems they're absolute crack shots with those things. I would definitely love to see more infantry - as far as I remember the main reason for its absence was to stop chain capturing in some missions? Maybe there'll be a way to address that at some point, or just make captured airfields not spawn any units in so that removing the inf to capture another will neutralise it again.

 

Before I forget - missiles. Any chance we can get Rb 05 (MCLOS air to ground, can be used for air to air but very very bad at it), RS-2US (hilariously bad beam-riding air to air), and R-55 (RS-2US with R-13 seeker) added to all missions next time you make changes to each? They're fun weapons to use because of how janky and unreliable they are, and won't significantly shift the way the missions play out. The only exception would be maybe the Rb 05 could knock over precision objectives a little faster, but it takes considerable skill to actually score hits with. Some more diversity in SAMs would be nice, too... maybe some shorter-ranged stuff like Osa or Roland? I'm not super knowledgeable on the latter, but the former are fairly easy to defeat if you know what you're doing while still providing reasonable cover to nearby objectives. So far the only place I've ever seen them on the server is at Kutaisi on Two Towns, which is a little odd, as it's very unlikely anything will get within 8km of the airbase as it is. More short-range units like those while trading out some Kubs and Hawks could be interesting in some missions, and give the helicopter guys more to play with.

 

On the topic of helicopters, I'm not sure if you've been given the heads-up yet, but some science was done and we've found that the CTLD issue where one unit spawns in place of another is caused by those units sharing the same "weight" in the CTLD settings. If you change the weight up or down even by a couple kilos, it should solve the problem. It might be worth looking into what other settings can be tinkered with as well, maybe to make things like Kubs only spawn one launcher per launcher crate, so multiple trips become more necessary and the poor Hueys aren't the only ones making 4 or so trips to set up a single battery.

 

 

As you surely know, it's not unrealistic for RPG's to knock out helicopters, especially when they're coming in for landing. You know, "We gotta a Blackhawk down, we gotta a Blackhawk down". So, I like that too.

The chain capturing is one reason, but infantries behaving bad in terms of waypoints and running through buildings, fences, structures, etc., is the other and major one. Despite all of that, I really liked yesterday's session with the infantries being heavily involved, which gives helicopters yet a nother thing to do or worry about.

 

The missiles are way too inferior as you've said it yourself and that's the only reason why I never bothered to add them. I could though as there's no harm in having them. I'll do it in time, mission by mission.

 

I'm aware of the weight issue in the CTLD script. Units MUST have different weights, otherwise the CTLD script would malfunction in the mission. What I'm more interested in right now, is enabling APC's to carry infantries. That'd be incredible! Imagine driving an APC with the capability of deploying troops and then calling them back in and so on. The whole ground warfare dynmaic would change immensely!

[Ian Boys UK]

I messed up on Mtn Peaks tonight and strafed a plane. Wasn't thinking, sorry.

 

Edited September 5, 2021 by Ian Boys UK

[Alpenwolf]

Just now, LoneS said:

Thanks for all the efforts bro!

It says you have to accept the money I sent you for the server costs and my money has been waiting for 4 days to be accepted

 

That's weird. I never had to do that. Normally, the money goes in right away without me doing anything.

 

Anyways, I just did and thank you for the generous donation! It really helps me with server's costs.

[Alpenwolf]

Server News:

 

- Operation Close Air Support:

   - Added 2 slots for the SA342L's -> 6 aircraft.

   - The SA342L's take off from a third FARP, Warsaw, located between the two Blue FARP's, further north.

   - FARP Warsaw is marked only for Blue on the F10 map.

   - FARP Warsaw is not part of the objective. It has no air defences and no infantries to pick up. It's only for the SA342L's to operate from.

   - SA342L's are primarily tasked with hunting Red helicopters, especially, Mi-24P's.

   - Added door gunners for the Mi-8's.

   - Added 2 slots for the Yak-52 for Red as a reconnaissance plane -> 4 aircraft.

   - Added 2 slots for the Christen Eagle ll for Blue as a reconnaissance plane -> 4 aircraft.

   - Briefing adjusted.

 

* We'll see how it goes with the two airplanes. I might replace them with the L-39 and C-101 while taking away all their weapons, so they only serve as recon planes.

 

- Work on a similar scenario of operation Close Air Support has started.

- The mission will feature the Ka-50, the Mi-24 and the Mi-8 for Red, vs the AH-64, the OH-58 and the UH-1 for Blue. Obviously, the mission will offer more challenges for both sides!

 

Operation Close Air Support will go online again this Sunday, 12.09.2021, 1800 zulu. Hopefully, the added SA342L's will help Blue repel some of the Mi-24's fury.

Edited September 6, 2021 by Alpenwolf

[Tavo89]

New rumors about the F-4 Phantom and the full fidelity Mig-29A.

 

Look at Minsky's post, DCS: Roadmap 

 

Edited September 7, 2021 by Tavo89

[Raviar]

5 hours ago, Tavo89 said:

New rumors about the F-4 Phantom and the full fidelity Mig-29A.

 

Look at Minsky's post, DCS: Roadmap 

 

 

not a rumor

 

 

[Legolas]

 

Hi,

 

During the Where the mountains cry, there was a non-oncoms F14 Pilot AND Rio (i won't write names down, unless needed) which had fired 3x on us (in a F14) and teamkilled alteast one F5 (writing this post while flying).

 

I would be good to consider the addition of script where it is mandatory to fly the F14 or Mig29 when you are on comms (if this is possible for single aircrafts). 

 

kind regards

[Alpenwolf]

3 hours ago, Legolas said:

 

Hi,

 

During the Where the mountains cry, there was a non-oncoms F14 Pilot AND Rio (i won't write names down, unless needed) which had fired 3x on us (in a F14) and teamkilled alteast one F5 (writing this post while flying).

 

I would be good to consider the addition of script where it is mandatory to fly the F14 or Mig29 when you are on comms (if this is possible for single aircrafts). 

 

kind regards

 

Teamkills will always happen. Forcing someone to be on SRS and the right frequency would be great, but such a script would be tough to do.

 

I was on TS all night long though. I could've reacted if someone had told me about it.

[sLYFa]

I saw this from the F10 view. He ripple fired 3 sidewinders at a mig-21 that was chasing another Tomcat. Two sidewinders hit the mig, the third went for an F-5 that was in the mix. Didnt look like intentional TK but poor judgement. 

[Zachrix]

4 hours ago, sLYFa said:

I saw this from the F10 view. He ripple fired 3 sidewinders at a mig-21 that was chasing another Tomcat. Two sidewinders hit the mig, the third went for an F-5 that was in the mix. Didnt look like intentional TK but poor judgement. 

He fired 4 Sparrows on my 14 Lmfao

 

EDIT: Screenshot proof 

 

 

Edited September 8, 2021 by Zachrix

[sLYFa]

Lol I did not see those launches, or was it in a different engegament? Anyway those guys really need to work on their IFF game

[Enigma89]

From the mission with the oil derricks (I always forget the name)

 

 

[Alpenwolf]

58 minutes ago, Enigma89 said:

From the mission with the oil derricks (I always forget the name)

 

 

 

Operation Mountain Peaks. Your MiG-19 couldn't carry any R3S missiles because there aren't any. The mission features the early stages of the Cold War, hence the absence of such missiles.

 

Good flying!

[Enigma89]

2 hours ago, Alpenwolf said:

 

Operation Mountain Peaks. Your MiG-19 couldn't carry any R3S missiles because there aren't any. The mission features the early stages of the Cold War, hence the absence of such missiles.

 

Good flying!

Ah yes that is the name. I liked that mission a lot.

[MarkMD]

mission has not spawned any blue vehicles...

 

Thanks,

Mike-Delta

 

[Tavo89]

Mig-19 Red, good flight and thank you.

Apart from looking spectacular. 

 

[Alpenwolf]

8 hours ago, MarkMD said:

mission has not spawned any blue vehicles...

 

Thanks,

Mike-Delta

 

 

What mission?

[QuiGon]

Hey @Alpenwolf, maybe this is a viable alternative for you to restrict available weapons on your server without having to mess around with the warehouses:

 

[rossmum]

22 minutes ago, Alpenwolf said:

What mission?

 

Behind Enemy Lines.

[Alpenwolf]

2 hours ago, QuiGon said:

Hey @Alpenwolf, maybe this is a viable alternative for you to restrict available weapons on your server without having to mess around with the warehouses:

 

 

Yeah, LazzySeal told me about it. And I believe he was behind this feature and argued for it among the ED staff. Top bloke!

 

2 hours ago, rossmum said:

 

Behind Enemy Lines.

 

Shame. That's Mike-Delta's favourite mission.

[QuiGon]

7 minutes ago, Alpenwolf said:

Yeah, LazzySeal told me about it. And I believe he was behind this feature and argued for it among the ED staff. Top bloke!

 

He was not the only one though

 

  

On 10/1/2020 at 12:21 PM, QuiGon said:

Unfortunately, DCS does not offer enough control. It is not possible in multiplayer for mission makers and/or admins to restrict weapons to certain pylons to enforce realistic (= technical possible) loadouts on a server.

 

On 10/6/2020 at 9:18 PM, QuiGon said:

Then at least give mission makers or server admins the ability to restrict loadouts please.

 

 

[Alpenwolf]

An F/A-18C Related Question:

 

If I'm to give Hornets information regarding the whereabouts of various target areas, is assigning waypoints the best/only best way to do it? What if I'm to provide coordinates (longitudes and latitudes) in the briefing and pilots must configure those themselves. Would that be just as good? Also, the mission I'm working on is late 80's so I'm not sure what systems a Hornet had access to.

 

Thanks in advance and please, answer only if you're sure of the information you're providing me with.

[=475FG= Dawger]

21 minutes ago, Alpenwolf said:

An F/A-18C Related Question:

 

If I'm to give Hornets information regarding the whereabouts of various target areas, is assigning waypoints the best/only best way to do it? What if I'm to provide coordinates (longitudes and latitudes) in the briefing and pilots must configure those themselves. Would that be just as good? Also, the mission I'm working on is late 80's so I'm not sure what systems a Hornet had access to.

 

Thanks in advance and please, answer only if you're sure of the information you're providing me with.

The only difference in placing the waypoints in the ME and providing the latitude and longitude is that you are forcing the Hornet pilots to type in the data. Since you are already placing waypoints in the ME for other aircraft, it seems you would just do the same for the Hornets.

 

The Hornet (and many other aircraft)utilizes an Inertial Navigation System. This system is autonomous (not requiring inputs from sources exterior to the aircraft) in order to keep track of the aircraft position. However, INS position will drift over time. The extent of this drift is dependent on many factors but with a high quality INS, it is fairly minor  for a short duration flight (less than 2 hours).

 

In order to minimize the effects of this drift, INS units have the capability to update its position from external sources, essentially correcting the drift back to zero by obtaining an accurate position fix.

 

Prior to GPS availability, INS units had to rely on terrestrial radio navigation aids for position updating. Many of these were line of sight only, so INS drift was a big factor for long oceanic crossings.

 

In the 1980's, GPS would not have been in wide use by the US military. INS systems would have been less accurate than they are with GPS available but still very reliable and accurate as a navigation source for short flights.