Jump to content

Cold War 1947 - 1991


Alpenwolf

Recommended Posts

  • ED Team
15 hours ago, Alpenwolf said:

This would have no impact on the server's performance and I do use this trigger for other things in some missions. I thought about it to be honest among other ways of punishing the player for exploiting the speed in such a way, but then imagine how many Viggens would be lost due to that. Besides, and you already said it yourself, that's some work there, mate.


The way to get around this issue - both for this and for disciplinary action against griefers, when they're auto-kicked off the slot - is to drop the stock system for airframes and instead count them yourself. Then you can choose whether or not you want the airframe to be counted as destroyed based on why it was lost (genuine damage vs disciplinary action against player) and then run a script like this one

so that you can block and unblock slots at your discretion by setting flags.

 

15 hours ago, Sideburns said:

This is not quite the only way to get rid of the speed exploit, but I suspect you will still argue for restricted weapons after a solution/patch regardless.

 

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.

 

5 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.

Not really a slippery slope - it's true, Ka-50 simply should not be on the server, period. It should be completely replaced with Mi-24 once Mi-24 is out. I know it probably won't happen because Alpen won't remove his favourite module from his server, but it's what should be done and I think you'll agree with me on this.

 

1 hour ago, Alpenwolf said:

- If the pilot exceeds the max IAS of 1400 kph and stays there for ca. 10 seconds, there is a 90% chance of him damaging the engine.

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?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, m4ti140 said:

...

...

...

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?

 

No, not set failure. That's for SP, I'm aware of that.

 

The trick is to have the unit "explode" using a minor volume for it with a bit of a delay so that the explosion takes place around the engine and not around the middle parts of the fuselage. I've tested it multiple times on the dedicated server and it worked! Quite often it kills your engine but one time it didn't, where the elevators were damaged.

 

As to how to deal with the Viggen problem, I did say that bugs coming from modules are always a difficult thing to deal with. It can never be as perfect as not having those bugs! So, instead of working on something else I'm stuck with a problem I shouldn't be even trying to fix in the first place, but it's the missions I'm trying to save due to that.

 

Word is, there will be the option of enabling a certain type of weapon for a certain pylon. Something I've been looking forward to for quite a while now, especially for the sake of the Su-25's and the MiG-29A's R-60M.

  • Like 3

cold war 1947 - 1991.jpg

Cold War 1947 - 1991                                       Discord
Helicopters Tournaments
Combined Arms Tournaments

You can help me with keeping up the server via PayPal donations: hokumyounis@yahoo.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Alpenwolf said:

Server News:

 

* Operation Open Range:

- All FARP's have been upgraded. No more mountainous and inconvenient single helipads.

 

* AJS37's speed bug:

All AJS37's in all Caucasus missions have now some IAS limits as follows:

- If an AJS37 pilot flies at an IAS of 1325 kph, a warning message and an alarming sound will warn him to not fly faster than an IAS of 1400 kph.

- If the pilot exceeds the max IAS of 1400 kph and stays there for ca. 10 seconds, there is a 90% chance of him damaging the engine.

- In most cases the engine damage will make it impossible to RTB.

- I'll do the same for all Persian Gulf missions soon.

 

----------------------------------------------------

 

Notes:

 

1)

Now, before you all start debating over what max IAS should be the limit for the AJS37, I had to make a decision based on what data I gathered from 3 different sources on the internet. Obviously it's not accurate bearing in mind all the different factors such as altitude, outside temp., humidity, etc. Therefore, a discussion would be pointless in my eyes but go ahead if you want to, just without me. Got other issues going on in older missions that require my time more than that, is all.

 

2)

After this IAS limit update, expect some units missing or triggers not working in the currently available Caucasus missions. ED's dedicated servers seem to somehow launch mission files with some elements missing. However, once a mission is back online again, the missing elements are then included and the mission is fine. For instance, we had the B-52's active at mission's start in Swedish Delivery yesterday, although this shouldn't have happened because they're on "Late Activation" and only once the SA-2 radar units are destroyed they become active. This morning I put the mission back online (without changing anything - same mission file) and the B-52's weren't active, the SA-2 sites were all there and everything else. It's an annoying issue that I've reported a while ago. Hope they get it fixed.

 

3)

Players' IP and UCID numbers are now visible to me thanks to some log files and LazzySeal's help. So, if a player trolls, teamkills his mates frequently or shows any unacceptable behaviour just report him to me via pm or publicly. Make sure you type his name correctly and provide EVIDENCE, please. With that I don't even need to be online to catch him. His IP and UCID are not going anywhere as there are saved on the server's machine.

 

This is not an intimidation, dear friends, so relax... Enjoy yourselves and use this only to help me keep a nice atmosphere on the server for us all to have... well... FUN!

 

Alpenwolf,

 

thank you very much! Given the circumstances, I think this is a very reasonable interim solution, until Heatblur improves the FM.

Just to clarify, will this mean the RB-24J is going back in as available loadout or is it still removed?

 

 

kind regards and thank you again for trying to accommodate all players!

 

 Snappy 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
1 hour ago, Alpenwolf said:

 

No, not set failure. That's for SP, I'm aware of that.

 

The trick is to have the unit "explode" using a minor volume for it with a bit of a delay so that the explosion takes place around the engine and not around the middle parts of the fuselage. I've tested it multiple times on the dedicated server and it worked! Quite often it kills your engine but one time it didn't, where the elevators were damaged.

 

As to how to deal with the Viggen problem, I did say that bugs coming from modules are always a difficult thing to deal with. It can never be as perfect as not having those bugs! So, instead of working on something else I'm stuck with a problem I shouldn't be even trying to fix in the first place, but it's the missions I'm trying to save due to that.

 

Word is, there will be the option of enabling a certain type of weapon for a certain pylon. Something I've been looking forward to for quite a while now, especially for the sake of the Su-25's and the MiG-29A's R-60M.

That's actually pretty clever.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Snappy said:

Alpenwolf,

 

thank you very much! Given the circumstances, I think this is a very reasonable interim solution, until Heatblur improves the FM.

Just to clarify, will this mean the RB-24J is going back in as available loadout or is it still removed?

 

 

kind regards and thank you again for trying to accommodate all players!

 

 Snappy 

 

If limiting certain weapons' types to certain pylons becomes an option for the mission designer then I'll put the RB-24J's back and they'll be limited to the two outer pylons only. I mean, the F-5, the F-86, the MiG-19 and the Su-25 get two missiles only. So there should be no problem for the Viggen to have only 2 missiles when they're for self defence purposes anyway.

 

You don't see Su-25 pilots going out there with only 2 x R-60M's to dogfight enemy planes. And they could! Su-25's are really good dogfighters! But they don't. So I'd expect Viggen pilots to do more or less the same. More or less means, yeah, go ahead and test your air to air skills. No problem with that. It's just when it's become way too much and quite often only that I'm forced to react. That's all.

 

Just now, m4ti140 said:

That's actually pretty clever.

 

Thank you!

 

Necessity is mother to all inventions -> My father always says that 😉

  • Like 1

cold war 1947 - 1991.jpg

Cold War 1947 - 1991                                       Discord
Helicopters Tournaments
Combined Arms Tournaments

You can help me with keeping up the server via PayPal donations: hokumyounis@yahoo.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Alpenwolf said:

So I'd expect Viggen pilots to do more or less the same. More or less means, yeah, go ahead and test your air to air skills. No problem with that. It's just when it's become way too much and quite often only that I'm forced to react. That's all. 


x2 RB24J’s is all the Viggen needs. We were hiding in the clouds on the Swedish delivery mission cruising towards the SA sites. Felt pretty venerable getting merge calls when loaded to the neck with rockets. 


Edited by NELLUS

DEVILS - COLD WAR AVIATORS

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by rossmum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

nvm, i can't read


Edited by BonerCat

Modules:

F-14, F-15C, F-16C, F/A-18C, M-2000C, A-10C, A-10C II, AV-8B N/A, MiG-29, Su-33, MiG-21 Bis, F-5E, P-51D, Ka-50, Mi-8, Sa 342, UH-1H, Combined Arms

 

Maps and others:

Persian Gulf, Syria, Normandy, WWII Assets, NS 430 + Mi-8 NS 430

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

cold war 1947 - 1991.jpg

Cold War 1947 - 1991                                       Discord
Helicopters Tournaments
Combined Arms Tournaments

You can help me with keeping up the server via PayPal donations: hokumyounis@yahoo.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1

Ryzen 5800x@5Ghz | 96gb DDR4 3200Mhz | Asus Rx6800xt TUF OC | 500Gb OS SSD + 1TB Gaming SSD | Asus VG27AQ | Trackhat clip | VPC WarBRD base | Thrustmaster stick and throttle (Deltasim minijoystick mod).

 

F14 | F16 | AJS37 | F5 | Av8b | FC3 | Mig21 | FW190D9 | Huey

 

Been playing DCS from Flanker 2.0 to present 😄

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

DEVILS - COLD WAR AVIATORS

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Conker4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

cold war 1947 - 1991.jpg

Cold War 1947 - 1991                                       Discord
Helicopters Tournaments
Combined Arms Tournaments

You can help me with keeping up the server via PayPal donations: hokumyounis@yahoo.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

cold war 1947 - 1991.jpg

Cold War 1947 - 1991                                       Discord
Helicopters Tournaments
Combined Arms Tournaments

You can help me with keeping up the server via PayPal donations: hokumyounis@yahoo.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
1 hour 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.

 

 

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.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.   

DEVILS - COLD WAR AVIATORS

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 2

cold war 1947 - 1991.jpg

Cold War 1947 - 1991                                       Discord
Helicopters Tournaments
Combined Arms Tournaments

You can help me with keeping up the server via PayPal donations: hokumyounis@yahoo.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
2 hours 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.

>1800 kph at sea level

>medium low speed advantage

lmao. 21 engine is destroyed at 1350 kph btw.

 

As for you never having been frustrated by fighting a Viggen - clearly you haven't fought yourself lol. Cause you're one of the people who have been using this exploit to your advantage, even if you were not aware of it (which I doubt).

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...