Cyclic ops

[Hogeo]

I thought the mission file I attached in my last post was too simple, so I re-created it with a more accurate schedule.

I thought that the group ID and the order in the plane.group table would determine the spawn sequence, which would determine the spots, and then the taxiing order would be determined by the parking location.

But to park on the street, it had to be placed in the top index of the plane.group table.

So I created a mission file with the following order and group ID assignments:

plane.group={

[1]=MISR MIO(F-14) groupId=23,
[2]=SHARP(F-14) groupId=24,
[3]=Delete1(F/A-18) groupId=20 (dummy aircraft group for parking E-2s on spots 7-8),
[4]=AEW(E-2) groupId=21,
[5]=FCF(E-2) groupId=22,
[6]=RTNK(S-3B) groupId=29,
[7]=CAP1(F/A-18) groupId=30,
[8]=CAP2(F/A-18) groupId=31,
[9]=CAP3(F/A-18) groupId=32,
[10]=CTTG(EA-6) groupId=33,

}

When I flew this mission, I got the following results:

8:50 Mission start. Spawned PG, E-2s and fighters parked on the street
9:00 Spawned other fighters
9:05 PG & E-2 engine start. But there is no way to delay the takeoff of the helicopter, so it takes off immediately.
9:15 fighters engine start
9:20 E-2 taxi start. The E-2 on spot 7 started taxiing, but the E-2 on spot 8 did not start taxiing, even though it was spawned before the fighters. And because there is no way to delay the launch, the E-2 launches without waiting for the launch time of 9:35.
9:30 fighters taxi start. But surprisingly, even the fighters on the street do not start taxiing. In conjunction with that, the E-2 on spot 8 does not start taxiing either.
9:35 PG & E-2 launch start. This is the original launch time for the PG and E-2.
9:45 fighters launch start. This is the original launch time for the fighters.

I don't understand why this result occurred.

And I don't understand why Supercarrier has specifications that are so difficult for hobbyist mission creators to understand.

I imagine this is a preferential treatment for third-party companies that have access to paid support.

So I've once again come to the conclusion that it's impossible to implement realistic cyclic ops using Lua scripts that hobbyist mission creators can implement.

test_airplan_event1-ver2.miz

[Hogeo]

I've been researching it for a few years, and I'm finally able to form these opinions.

Every time I learn about various actual operating methods, I am amazed at ED's attitude of claiming to have been making "flight simulators" for 15 long years.

The word simulator is given to something that virtually reproduces a real situation, so if DCS World is a simulator, there can be no operations that do not exist in reality.

Aircraft carriers never perform launch/recovery operations while sailing in a straight line. They always set up a diversion airport, stay in an area of sea where they can reach it in an emergency, and perform launch/recovery operations while turning.

And aircraft never take off or land while heading downwind.

The only place where aircraft carriers which takeoff and landing operations are performed on an aircraft carrier that sails forever in a straight line, or where takeoff and landing can be performed even when heading downwind are allowed to appear is in a shooting game that does not need to pursue realism, such as Ace Combat.

Despite this, DCS World's Supercarrier, which is called a flight simulator, only has a shooter-like aircraft carrier.

What does this mean?

If only shooter-like modules are available, ED should stop calling DCS World a flight simulator. Instead, ED should call DCS World a shooter game.

ED should not scam people into paying high prices by making them believe that they can experience a real war in the game by making them watch promotional videos.

But ED will argue:

"Even starting an aircraft engine is a lot of steps, and can players do it? If it's not reasonably simplified, no one will play it."

So what percentage of DCS World is realistic?

I've been saying for years that it's not realistic to be able to take off and land on a downwind-bound aircraft carrier. And this is common sense in the aviation, and it will never be operated like that in real life.

But ED still hasn't abolished it.

It's true that in reality, it may be possible to ignore the tower's instructions, or to take off and land downwind on a runway without a tower.

It's very interesting that they don't reproduce the most common operations, but they do faithfully reproduce the ones that are rarely performed.

I can only think that ED is deceiving people by calling DCS World, a shooting game that is far from reality, a "simulator" under the pretext of "simplifying it for the players".

You may say, "If you think so, you just need to stop playing DCS World. ED is not forcing you to buy or play mods. And even though you complain to us like that, you recently bought new maps and mods. It's you who should realize your own contradiction."

If ED claims like that, it must be understood that they are confessing that "ED continues to sell mods while knowing that they are defrauding people's curiosity."

[Jackjack171]

2 hours ago, Hogeo said:

I've been researching it for a few years, and I'm finally able to form these opinions.

Every time I learn about various actual operating methods, I am amazed at ED's attitude of claiming to have been making "flight simulators" for 15 long years.

The word simulator is given to something that virtually reproduces a real situation, so if DCS World is a simulator, there can be no operations that do not exist in reality.

Aircraft carriers never perform launch/recovery operations while sailing in a straight line. They always set up a diversion airport, stay in an area of sea where they can reach it in an emergency, and perform launch/recovery operations while turning.

And aircraft never take off or land while heading downwind.

The only place where aircraft carriers which takeoff and landing operations are performed on an aircraft carrier that sails forever in a straight line, or where takeoff and landing can be performed even when heading downwind are allowed to appear is in a shooting game that does not need to pursue realism, such as Ace Combat.

Despite this, DCS World's Supercarrier, which is called a flight simulator, only has a shooter-like aircraft carrier.

What does this mean?

If only shooter-like modules are available, ED should stop calling DCS World a flight simulator. Instead, ED should call DCS World a shooter game.

ED should not scam people into paying high prices by making them believe that they can experience a real war in the game by making them watch promotional videos.

But ED will argue:

"Even starting an aircraft engine is a lot of steps, and can players do it? If it's not reasonably simplified, no one will play it."

So what percentage of DCS World is realistic?

I've been saying for years that it's not realistic to be able to take off and land on a downwind-bound aircraft carrier. And this is common sense in the aviation, and it will never be operated like that in real life.

But ED still hasn't abolished it.

It's true that in reality, it may be possible to ignore the tower's instructions, or to take off and land downwind on a runway without a tower.

It's very interesting that they don't reproduce the most common operations, but they do faithfully reproduce the ones that are rarely performed.

I can only think that ED is deceiving people by calling DCS World, a shooting game that is far from reality, a "simulator" under the pretext of "simplifying it for the players".

You may say, "If you think so, you just need to stop playing DCS World. ED is not forcing you to buy or play mods. And even though you complain to us like that, you recently bought new maps and mods. It's you who should realize your own contradiction."

If ED claims like that, it must be understood that they are confessing that "ED continues to sell mods while knowing that they are defrauding people's curiosity."

For the record, I'm a retired flight deck chief. Contrary to what you said, we launch and recover into the wind. We have to wait for the ship to steady up when we do it! The ship is on a PIM (position of intended movement). When flight ops commence, the ship HAS to turn into the wind. There are variables such as: Helo blades folding and unfolding, the E-2's and C-2's need a certain amount of wind. When pilots go up on deck, they have to stop by Flight deck control to give the Shooters a weight chit. The Shooters have to calculate the WOD (wind over deck) along with Asymmetry, (fuel and ordnance carried and on what wing stations) Which CAT is suitable for which aircraft (can't just put any aircraft on any catapult like you can in DCS). One other example, I can't shoot a Jet past a prop because the exhaust will flame out the prop aircraft. If an E-2 is landing, I cannot have hot exhaust blowing into the LA (landing area) because if the prop A/C bolters, it will fly right through that exhaust and flame it out. DCS doesn't simulate this!

When we are finished shooting, the recovery of the previous cycle is commencing, sometimes simultaneously! After the last aircraft traps, more often than not, the ship will make a turn and change course again. She may make several turns, but in order to get the winds up, she HAS to turn back into the wind. Now, the catapults are designed to shoot in a no wind situation, but that is not optimal nor favored. When the next cycle starts, she shall turn again, if she already hasn't, wash, rinse, repeat.

In all honesty, I'm surprised you posted that Air plan. Those things are FOUO and should never leave the boat! 

I've stated this before, ED is doing the best it can but tackling an Air Plan, let alone cyclic ops is a complex feat. I'm not surprised that it hasn't been replicated and that's ok. The average person has no idea the complex nature of flight ops at sea. YouTube and such don't count and doesn't help, it's like the Matrix, you have to live it to believe it!

If you have any questions, I'm open to conversation but your info about flight operations is in error. IMHO, DCS is just fine! Yes, there is always room for improvement, but it is the better sim out right now, unless one is looking for the Ace Combat type of stuff. ATC in DCS has been my biggest peeve since forever, yet I choose to play it the way I need to play it. DCS is a sandbox and the choice is yours!  I'm not sure about the defrauded and scammed part either. If you do, I'd suggest a divestment! It's a buyers' market and people are free to spend their money at their leisure. 

It never ceases to amaze me at the number of DCS players that claim to love aviation, yet one can always tell whether they did the heavy lifting on anything that they claim. There is a lot of information out there. Some of it is hogwash. I think there's maybe too much access to info as most have gotten lazy and interpret what they see. For example, the amount of folks that think a Block 30/40/50 Viper are one and the same (just go through the Forums). Or which countries fly which models, and the one ED simulates. It's not that difficult, yet it seems it is. 

Anyway, feel free to ask me any questions about CV Flight ops and please give ED a break! The stuff that they've created, a few others and I have waited a lifetime for.