Cold War 1947 - 1991

[Get_Lo]

17 hours ago, Alpenwolf said:

 

The mission is fine, it's just when a mission is updated and added back to the mission's list and put online for the first time ED's dedicated server doesn't upload all the elements of the mission.

Got it, Thank you! Btw Two Towns is the best mission
Also we got to find a way to fix this player related issue, 
https://gyazo.com/edab16285dc66194f4ae4dcfc0565ff2

The big jets are fun when there is many people online, but this is just a chore man. 6 missiles, radar missile, an HMD, and infinitely better performance than what the core jets can offer, the 14 is guilty too but its a bit harder to use, no IRST, no HMD. i know you've thought about solutions to this problem before alpen, what do you  think? I want to keep them around but I wish there was a way to keep them locked until the playerbase reached a certain size. Viggen vs MiG-29s is like a chihuahua (albeit a very fast one) trying to fight a pitbull. You can tell im a bit butt-hurt  
I suppose it should be worth adding that I do occasionally see players who join only to see if they can fly the big jets, and if they cant, they leave. and if they can, they normally fly them until they wreck them all and then leave. a few names come to mind with this "tactic"

Edited May 17, 2021 by Get_Lo

[Shadow KT]

On 5/12/2021 at 3:10 PM, Alpenwolf said:

The only reason why I haven't done that yet is the bad behaviour of infantries in DCS. As of now you can't even move them around even if a cmdr operator assigns waypoints to them. Prior to DCS 2.7, a cmdr operator would move them around, yes, but they'd get stuck somewhere at some point and not move or fire any more. 

 

Looking forward to it.

Did you try switching state to GREEN ?

Either AUTO or GREEN.

Behavior changes from patch to patch, sometimes AUTO manages it well enough, sometimes it doesn't. In general, when in RED Infantry WILL NOT move. They have to be in GREEN STATE.

[The_Tau]

3 hours ago, Shadow KT said:

Did you try switching state to GREEN ?

Either AUTO or GREEN.

Behavior changes from patch to patch, sometimes AUTO manages it well enough, sometimes it doesn't. In general, when in RED Infantry WILL NOT move. They have to be in GREEN STATE.

Right now, even giving more than one order to vehicles don't work anymore 

[Shadow KT]

6 minutes ago, The_Tau said:

Right now, even giving more than one order to vehicles don't work anymore 

You mean where they start moving and then stop ? You just set them to 0 speed and then back to normal and they start moving again.

[Alpenwolf]

6 hours ago, Get_Lo said:

Got it, Thank you! Btw Two Towns is the best mission
Also we got to find a way to fix this player related issue, 
https://gyazo.com/edab16285dc66194f4ae4dcfc0565ff2

The big jets are fun when there is many people online, but this is just a chore man. 6 missiles, radar missile, an HMD, and infinitely better performance than what the core jets can offer, the 14 is guilty too but its a bit harder to use, no IRST, no HMD. i know you've thought about solutions to this problem before alpen, what do you  think? I want to keep them around but I wish there was a way to keep them locked until the playerbase reached a certain size. Viggen vs MiG-29s is like a chihuahua (albeit a very fast one) trying to fight a pitbull. You can tell im a bit butt-hurt  
I suppose it should be worth adding that I do occasionally see players who join only to see if they can fly the big jets, and if they cant, they leave. and if they can, they normally fly them until they wreck them all and then leave. a few names come to mind with this "tactic"

 

 

It's a rare case, mate. Mostly it's not just MiG-29's or F-14's flying around as shown in your screenshot. Whatever changes I make there will always be a way around them and some players will always exploit things to their own advantage. At some point I've got to stop this fine tuning, otherwise I'd never be done with it. Besides, the time at which the mission ran and the screenshot was made wasn't around the rush hours of the server so it has little impact on the general perspective.

[Alpenwolf]

4 hours ago, Shadow KT said:

Did you try switching state to GREEN ?

Either AUTO or GREEN.

Behavior changes from patch to patch, sometimes AUTO manages it well enough, sometimes it doesn't. In general, when in RED Infantry WILL NOT move. They have to be in GREEN STATE.

 

No and exactly for the very reason you mentioned. One patch is released and these things are malfunctioning again. I guess we'll have to wait for a substantial upgrade for the Combined Arms module before starting to rely on infantries. I started working on a new mission involving ground warfare heavily. However, and with the current state of CA I had to stop. I mean, I can't even test things out before making any progress so I literally had to stop designing the new mission.

 

Looking forward to any CA progress more than ever.

[Shadow KT]

22 minutes ago, Alpenwolf said:

 

No and exactly for the very reason you mentioned. One patch is released and these things are malfunctioning again. I guess we'll have to wait for a substantial upgrade for the Combined Arms module before starting to rely on infantries. I started working on a new mission involving ground warfare heavily. However, and with the current state of CA I had to stop. I mean, I can't even test things out before making any progress so I literally had to stop designing the new mission.

 

Looking forward to any CA progress more than ever.

 

I mean, if it is only the AUTO state for the infantry.... shouldn't be an issue for Ground Commanders to manage.

[Alpenwolf]

34 minutes ago, Shadow KT said:

 

I mean, if it is only the AUTO state for the infantry.... shouldn't be an issue for Ground Commanders to manage.

 

I'm not at my PC right now so I can't test that out.

[rogorogo]

@Alpenwolf
just an FYI about a potential typo (or a global 2,7 bug, in the latter case disregard).

In the "Phone Booth" mission I was flying around recently (iirc last weekend so around a week ago) via RSBN-Navigation in my 21 and noticed the following weird behaviour.

The RSBN global DCS channel setting for:

• Mozodok (ch 9) sent me to Nalchik
• Beslan (ch 10) sent me to Mozdok
• Nalchik (ch 8 ) sent me off to somewhere too but I have not tested where

As these are the global DCS fixed channel settings for the Caucasus map and I found nothing in the briefing or in the F10-map airfield info to indicate that these were switched IDK if that was a 2,7 related bug, they were switched on purpose (if that is even possible for those and not just the unassigned one as it is in ARC), or I have had #justaDCSmoment.

Since I even touched down in Nalchik (only running over 1 poor infantry guy on the strip) I also noticed the airfield is offering all services even directly on the runway.
I also do no know if you intend for Beslans's RSBN to be even active as long as it is in contested state.

So maybe you should just be aware if that is a typo-related bug - if all is in order or a global thing beyond your influence, please disregard.

[Shadow KT]

1 hour ago, Alpenwolf said:

 

I'm not at my PC right now so I can't test that out.

 

Just had a quick test with all the different types of infantry, for the most part they work. There are some hang ups here and there, but not anything that can't be handled.

[Alpenwolf]

5 hours ago, rogorogo said:

@Alpenwolf
just an FYI about a potential typo (or a global 2,7 bug, in the latter case disregard).

In the "Phone Booth" mission I was flying around recently (iirc last weekend so around a week ago) via RSBN-Navigation in my 21 and noticed the following weird behaviour.

The RSBN global DCS channel setting for:

• Mozodok (ch 9) sent me to Nalchik
• Beslan (ch 10) sent me to Mozdok
• Nalchik (ch 8 ) sent me off to somewhere too but I have not tested where

As these are the global DCS fixed channel settings for the Caucasus map and I found nothing in the briefing or in the F10-map airfield info to indicate that these were switched IDK if that was a 2,7 related bug, they were switched on purpose (if that is even possible for those and not just the unassigned one as it is in ARC), or I have had #justaDCSmoment.

Since I even touched down in Nalchik (only running over 1 poor infantry guy on the strip) I also noticed the airfield is offering all services even directly on the runway.
I also do no know if you intend for Beslans's RSBN to be even active as long as it is in contested state.

So maybe you should just be aware if that is a typo-related bug - if all is in order or a global thing beyond your influence, please disregard.

 

The RSBN channels are beyond the mission designer. The developer of the MiG-21 is the only one responsbile for those. You can't turn them on or off and move them around or the like. Take for example the PG map. There were only a few RSBN channels available in the beginning. And only after many users' requests the developers released RSBN channels for all the other airbases. There is nothing I can do.

[Get_Lo]

12 hours ago, Alpenwolf said:

 

It's a rare case, mate. Mostly it's not just MiG-29's or F-14's flying around as shown in your screenshot. Whatever changes I make there will always be a way around them and some players will always exploit things to their own advantage. At some point I've got to stop this fine tuning, otherwise I'd never be done with it. Besides, the time at which the mission ran and the screenshot was made wasn't around the rush hours of the server so it has little impact on the general perspective.

Ill keep an eye out but ive noticed it happening more and more, especially when the server is fresh off a rotation or when the player count is low. certainly more common than it used to be
EDIT:
Went to go hop on just now, only BLUE are in F-14s

Edited May 17, 2021 by Get_Lo

[Alpenwolf]

14 hours ago, Get_Lo said:

Ill keep an eye out but ive noticed it happening more and more, especially when the server is fresh off a rotation or when the player count is low. certainly more common than it used to be
EDIT:
Went to go hop on just now, only BLUE are in F-14s

 

 

Which is 12-13 hours ago. That's way after the rush hours, especially during the week.

[Alpenwolf]

Server News:

 

Operation The Tunb Identity:

- BTR-80's, M113's and Humvees have been removed.

- Instead, the speedboats unload 6 infantries each.

- Some speedboats carry one MANPAD and one ammo truck with them in addition to the 6 infantries.

- Mi-8's and UH-1's can only transport 6 infantries and a crate of their choice.

- The available crates are: MANPAD, ammo truck and EWR.

- Note that EWR's are available at mission's start so focus on deploying reinforcements on the islands.

 

Notes:

- Fighters on both sides will still lack the ability to carry rockets or bombs. I hope this encourages Mi-8's and UH-1's to test their CAS skills.

- Make sure the infantry's alarm state is set to AUTO or GREEN should they refuse to go on with the waypoints you assign to them.

[Shadow KT]

Just so people know. Infantry cannot engage and move. If they are set to auto, the moment they spot something, they will go state RED and will engage. If they were on the move, this will make them stop. If they eliminate their target, they should automatically go back to green state (being on AUTO) and continue moving. If you want to force them to move, even when under fire, manually select GREEN state.

If a units starts moving, but after a while stops, and you can see its set waypoint is still active, you have to move the speed slider to 0 and then back to a given speed. DO NOT SLAM THE SLIDER TO MAX SPEED, as that can cause desync. Increase speed and monitor what they can actually achieve and set it to the maximum value you notice. If Infantry are damaged, they will move slower, react slower and be less accurate. They can reach a damaged state, where they can no longer do anything. All this applies to all units generally.

[Shadow KT]

@AlpenwolfWhy does a KUB site require two creates, but a HAWK site requires four crates ?

Was the actual weight to units option implemented in CTLD ? If so, could it be enabled ? I know most of these helicopters cannot carry the real weight of what they carry in crates, but when you load crates, it says some sort of an arbitrary weight, which is within limits. 

[The_Tau]

2 minutes ago, Shadow KT said:

@AlpenwolfWhy does a KUB site require two creates, but a HAWK site requires four crates ?
 

IFAIK this is due to script being written this way. Alpen don't have time and can't find someone wanting to share scripting skills to change available scripts to fit Cold War server better. So basically thats the available tools Alpen have access to.  Thats also a reason why Red mostly had T72s and Blue M1A2s, as script only allowed helis to carry t72 and not say t80s. 

 

[Shadow KT]

7 minutes ago, The_Tau said:

IFAIK this is due to script being written this way. Alpen don't have time and can't find someone wanting to share scripting skills to change available scripts to fit Cold War server better. So basically thats the available tools Alpen have access to.  Thats also a reason why Red mostly had T72s and Blue M1A2s, as script only allowed helis to carry t72 and not say t80s. 

 

Interesting....

Edited May 18, 2021 by Shadow KT

[Apok]

On 5/17/2021 at 11:15 AM, The_Tau said:

Right now, even giving more than one order to vehicles don't work anymore 

I always change formation to diamond to fix start-stop problems.

[Alpenwolf]

6 hours ago, Shadow KT said:

@AlpenwolfWhy does a KUB site require two creates, but a HAWK site requires four crates ?

Was the actual weight to units option implemented in CTLD ? If so, could it be enabled ? I know most of these helicopters cannot carry the real weight of what they carry in crates, but when you load crates, it says some sort of an arbitrary weight, which is within limits. 

 

Ciribob wrote the script this way. KUB sites have a radar unit and some launchers. Hawk sites however, require different vehicles for scanning, tracking, etc. So he made it that way in the script because that's how it is real life. He could've made it 2 crates nonetheless for Blue but for whatever reasons he decided to make Blue deploy 4 crates. And it's been like that for years by the way. I spoke to him about this, and in order to change that or any other minor things it would require him to rewrite most parts of the script.

 

In order to make the weight have some effects on the helicopters, it would require ED to implement the CTLD script and merge it with their hardcore one, as explained to me by Ciribob. So no chance.

 

Thankfully we have his great script. Throughout the years it's obvious that some rewriting would be great but none of them scripters is willing to do it. And surely I'm not going to add more workload on my shoulders.

[Shadow KT]

22 minutes ago, Alpenwolf said:

 

Ciribob wrote the script this way. KUB sites have a radar unit and some launchers. Hawk sites however, require different vehicles for scanning, tracking, etc. So he made it that way in the script because that's how it is real life. He could've made it 2 crates nonetheless for Blue but for whatever reasons he decided to make Blue deploy 4 crates. And it's been like that for years by the way. I spoke to him about this, and in order to change that or any other minor things it would require him to rewrite most parts of the script.

 

In order to make the weight have some effects on the helicopters, it would require ED to implement the CTLD script and merge it with their hardcore one, as explained to me by Ciribob. So no chance.

 

Thankfully we have his great script. Throughout the years it's obvious that some rewriting would be great but none of them scripters is willing to do it. And surely I'm not going to add more workload on my shoulders.

 

Has he updated the CTLD script recently ? Last time I checked the github page, it wasn't touched in quite the period.

The ability to add weight, via scripts quite some time ago now, by ED. I believe there even is a pull request for it on the CTLD page, but again... no activity there, at least when I checked, couple of months ago.

 

Edited May 18, 2021 by Shadow KT

[Alpenwolf]

26 minutes ago, Shadow KT said:

 

Has he updated the CTLD script recently ? Last time I checked the github page, it wasn't touched in quite the period.

The ability to add weight, via scripts quite some time ago now, by ED. I believe there even is a pull request for it on the CTLD page, but again... no activity there, at least when I checked, couple of months ago.

 

 

 

No, nothing.

[NELLUS]

Any thoughts on going R3S/R13M for Red and Gar8/RB24 for Blue?

It seems that we are heading in that direction anyway due to upcoming modules and existing ones. Planes like the MiG19/15 and Sabre would have a better chance of fighting among the later era MiG21 and F5/Viggen fighters. 
 

 

Edited May 20, 2021 by NELLUS

[Alpenwolf]

1 hour ago, NELLUS said:

Any thoughts on going R3S/R13M for Red and Gar8/RB24 for Blue?

It seems that we are heading in that direction anyway due to upcoming modules and existing ones. Planes like the MiG19/15 and Sabre would have a better chance of fighting among the later era MiG21 and F5/Viggen fighters. 
 

 

 

 

There are two missions (currently offline), Mountain Peaks and Sukhumi - The Beginning, where R-55's and GAR-8's are the only allowed air-to-air missiles. I remember when the R-60 was just as deadly as the R-60M being all-aspect and just as maneuverable, I gave Red R-13M1's and R-3S's only until the R-60 was fixed. It was an interesting setup with Blue having a slight advantage with their AIM-9P's for a change. Giving Blue the GAR-8's instead would only leave us yet again with Red having the advantage in the air-to-air arsenal, only then it would be R-13M1's and R3S's vs GAR-8's and RB-24's, instead of R-60's vs AIM-9P's and RB-24J's. Seems like Blue air-to-air missiles (Cold War 1947-1991 missiles) aren't that good in DCS. Or are they?

 

It seems like Red has an advantage there with R-60's homing more often on their target while head-on that it is the case with AIM-9P's. I've had some pm's and posts here in that regard. It really is confusing to me because I and you all have no idea which missile is better in real life. Or are they the same? I mean, exactly the same? That much similarity? Who knows...

 

I wouldn't mind going back to R-13M1's and R3S's vs AIM-9P's and RB-24's. You know as I always say, to break the routine.

 

The Su-25T will go away once the Su-17 arrives!!! So finally no more 16 x Vikhr's on a deadly tank killer such as the Su-25T among other features it brigns along to the table. The Su-17 together with the Su-25 would be enough to deal with Blue tanks using all types of rockets and missiles. The problem I see is with the current Blue strikers, the A-10A and the AJS37, is that they're almost helpless without AGM-65's against Red tanks. The Mavericks are way too much compared to whatever the Su-17 and the Su-25 might have and I'd love to go further back in time and use less sophisticated weapons. At least in some missions (or maybe all?). Hydra rockets wont be enough to deal with Red tanks, I'm afraid, and bombs aren't your ultimate weapon against mobile ground units. I mean, you can't destroy a T-72 or a T-80 with those rockets, can you? (Any Blue pilots mind testing that out, please?).

 

Unless I'm wrong, the USAF has always used guided weapons to deal with enemy tanks (years post WWll obviously - and it is the case in the missions I have) so taking away the AGM-65's would really make it tough for Blue.

 

It's an interesting and a very vital topic for the missions without a doubt.

 

@ All:

Your feedback, ideas and thoughts are more than welcome so share them, please.

Edited May 20, 2021 by Alpenwolf

[NELLUS]

@Alpenwolf R-13M1's and R3S's vs AIM-9P's and RB-24's 

 

Will jump on that air to ground test wagon when back from travels. 
 

..SU17 

Edited May 20, 2021 by NELLUS