Jump to content

Operation Scarlet Dawn - Syria PvE Persistent Campaign


Recommended Posts

Yeah that's what I mean, the version of moose u used doesn't support the forestal as it's an older version (that you mentioned you had edited from stock), so In a few of my scripts it doesn't detect the forrestal, I would replace it with the stock latest moose but I assume given the changes you made in the the "snow blossom" one I think it was called , I might screw stuff up if I used the "default moose"version one, from the moose website.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having a blast with your Operations Surrexen!

However, struggling with Operation Sea Slug in single player, as it's proving impossible to get any hits on either of the naval task forces, and the SAM coverage from them is covering the enemy held islands (i.e. Saipan) Sending in two hornets with ASM loadouts as well as going in with my own aircraft with Harpoons. Even the advance guard of the fleets are impossible to get hits on.

While it's likely realistic (3 aircraft won't be able to take down a fleet) does anyone have any strategies to take them on?

Ryzen 5800X3D | 64GB DDR4 @ 3600MHz | Gigabyte X570-Aorus Ultra | Gigabyte GeForce 4090 | Samsung C34F791 | Varjo Aero | Windows 10 Pro x64 | Auzentech X-Fi Forte | too many flight controllers...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Badass1982 said:

Yeah that's what I mean, the version of moose u used doesn't support the forestal as it's an older version (that you mentioned you had edited from stock), so In a few of my scripts it doesn't detect the forrestal, I would replace it with the stock latest moose but I assume given the changes you made in the the "snow blossom" one I think it was called , I might screw stuff up if I used the "default moose"version one, from the moose website.

Sorry you've completely lost me. None of the carriers are dependent on Moose in my missions (at least in the versions that are being worked on currently). What support are you talking about exactly? If you have made modifications to my missions, that is your issue, not mine. If you swap over to the public moose version, I have no idea what might break, I haven't looked at public moose in about 2 years or something like that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point I'm making is that the version of moose used in your missions is different to the version that is stock (in that it has been modified in ways I don't know and was released with your missions long before the latest version of the stock moose file) , otherwise why would you use a modified version. If I was to replace your moose version with the one from the moose GitHub page , it would likely break your missions.

 

I maybe wrong on this but I assume there are changes in your version that there aren't in the newer stock ones.

 

That is what I'm getting at, so if appleevangelist and co make changes to the default moose file , it won't have whatever modifications that have been made in that "stock" file to the one in your missions.

 

Either way it's not a big deal just thought Id ask.


Edited by Badass1982
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Badass1982 said:

The point I'm making is that the version of moose used in your missions is different to the version that is stock (in that itvahs been modified in ways I don't know and was released with your missions long before the lastest version of the stock moose file) , otherwise why would you use a modified version. If I was to replace your moose version with the one from the moose GitHub page , it would likely break your missions.

 

I maybe wrong on this but I assume there are changes in your version that there aren't in the newer stock ones.

 

That is what I'm getting at, so if appleevangelist and co make changes to the default moose file , it won't have whatever modifications that have been made to the ones in your mission.

 

Either way it's not a big deal just thought Id ask.

I use the one I use because I know it works, it's stable ... and I don't need all the other fancy newer stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PSA: There appears to be an issue with Infantry units incorrectly being recorded as static objects when they are killed. This will mean when the mission restarts, persistence will throw an error as it will be unable to find the unit name as a static and remove it from the map (since it's a unit and not a static). It shouldn't cause anything else to fail. I will get fixes out soon.

This will affect all of my missions currently.


Edited by Surrexen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, =37.Sqn= Mjugen said:

Hi Surrexen, any chance that Operation Scarlet Dawn will be updated also ?

Thanks.

Yes, there is one in progress but that's a much bigger job due to the extra airfields.


Edited by Surrexen
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Surrexen said:

PSA: There appears to be an issue with Infantry units incorrectly being recorded as static objects when they are killed. This will mean when the mission restarts, persistence will throw an error as it will be unable to find the unit name as a static and remove it from the map (since it's a unit and not a static). It shouldn't cause anything else to fail. I will get fixes out soon.

This will affect all of my missions currently.

 

This isn't limited to infantry. I use the same persistence script you made in a mission I made for my server. after the last update it recorded a lot of the ground units as statics. I can't be sure if it was all or just most but I would suspect it was most. Armor, artillery, SAM units, and infantry were all recorded in the static internment file. It's weird because when I just make a blank mission with the debug lines on in the persistence script, a ground unit that dies instantly is recorded as a unit in the EventData.IniObjectCategory like it should. but if it burns and then explodes later, when it gets recorded as dead in the event it's recorded as a static in EventData.IniObjectCategory. But the in EventData.IniCategory it still seems to record it correctly. Hopefully that helps? I dunno why the sudden change.

12900K | MSI Z690 | STRIX RTX3090 | 64GB DDR4 3600MHz | NVMe Storage gen3 | Custom Loop | Valve Index

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Astronaut said:

This isn't limited to infantry. I use the same persistence script you made in a mission I made for my server. after the last update it recorded a lot of the ground units as statics. I can't be sure if it was all or just most but I would suspect it was most. Armor, artillery, SAM units, and infantry were all recorded in the static internment file. It's weird because when I just make a blank mission with the debug lines on in the persistence script, a ground unit that dies instantly is recorded as a unit in the EventData.IniObjectCategory like it should. but if it burns and then explodes later, when it gets recorded as dead in the event it's recorded as a static in EventData.IniObjectCategory. But the in EventData.IniCategory it still seems to record it correctly. Hopefully that helps? I dunno why the sudden change.

Yes Indeed, I realised it wasn't just infantry late last night. I think I have a fix for it but will have to do some more testing with it first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Surrexen said:

Yes Indeed, I realised it wasn't just infantry late last night. I think I have a fix for it but will have to do some more testing with it first.

yeah I have "fixed" it too, my method just combines the static and unit internment into one array, then an if + elseif to check if it finds the entry as a unit or static. seems to work.

12900K | MSI Z690 | STRIX RTX3090 | 64GB DDR4 3600MHz | NVMe Storage gen3 | Custom Loop | Valve Index

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Astronaut said:

yeah I have "fixed" it too, my method just combines the static and unit internment into one array, then an if + elseif to check if it finds the entry as a unit or static. seems to work.

I'm going to leave it how it is for now as it turns out the issue has been reported to ED.


Edited by Surrexen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Operation Snowfox Escalation updated: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3313322/

1. Apache slots added to London/Paris FARPS, Al Dhafra and Al Minhad

2. Forrestal added with slots for F-14A/F-14B/FA-18C

3. More mission targets added

4. Spawn timers adjusted for red air patrols/strikes etc

5. Many script changes, too many to list

Be aware the abovementioned issue with persistence is still present, hopefully fixed in the next ED hotfix/patch etc. Enjoy.


Edited by Surrexen
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks bud. We have it up on the Rotors & Rust server and will let you know how it goes. Your missions are a server favourite.

DCS Wishlist: | Navy F-14 | Navy F/A-18 | AH-6 | Navy A-6 | Official Navy A-4 | Carrier Ops | Dynamic Campaign | Marine AH-1 |

 

Streaming DCS sometimes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, ruprecht said:

Thanks bud. We have it up on the Rotors & Rust server and will let you know how it goes. Your missions are a server favourite.

Yeah keep me posted, lots of changes to Snowfox. I don't think I broke anything, but anything is possible 🙂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Surrexen said:

Operation Snowfox Escalation updated: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3313322/

1. Apache slots added to London/Paris FARPS, Al Dhafra and Al Minhad

2. Forrestal added with slots for F-14A/F-14B/FA-18C

3. More mission targets added

4. Spawn timers adjusted for red air patrols/strikes etc

5. Many script changes, too many to list

Be aware the abovementioned issue with persistence is still present, hopefully fixed in the next ED hotfix/patch etc. Enjoy.

 

next one is Scarlet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, slampemil said:

I almost feel terrible asking this - but are Operation Clear Field Escalation getting an update too? Love your missions.

Have a nice day!

 

Must be your lucky day ...

Operation Clear Field Escalation updated: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3316256/

1. Apache's added to helo system and client slots added all over the place

2. Forrestal added

3. Tomahawks added

4. Helo's added to Tbilisi-Lochini

5. Script changes, again too many to list

 

Operation Snowfox Escalation updated: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3313322/

1. Put the Tactical Commander slot back in and re-enabled pilots can control vehicles (had been removed by accident)

 

Enjoy

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Surrexen said:

 

Must be your lucky day ...

Operation Clear Field Escalation updated: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3316256/

1. Apache's added to helo system and client slots added all over the place

2. Forrestal added

3. Tomahawks added

4. Helo's added to Tbilisi-Lochini

5. Script changes, again too many to list

 

Operation Snowfox Escalation updated: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3313322/

1. Put the Tactical Commander slot back in and re-enabled pilots can control vehicles (had been removed by accident)

 

Enjoy

Haha!
Well <profanity> me. Thank you from the bottom of my heart!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Operation Scarlet Dawn updated: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3313323/

1. Red air adjusted so they can fall all the way back to Deir ez-Zor

2. Spawn timers for air spawns and red strikes adjusted

3. Kharab Isk and At Tanf have been made permanent blue bases and have a set of helo's

4. Sanliurfa and H3 have been made permanent blue bases and have a handful of airframes (Turkish F-16's, Iraqi MiG-29's etc)

5. Tabqa and Palmyra should now be capturable and made as part of phase 3

6. Apaches added to London/Paris FARP. Hind default loadouts adjusted.

7. Forrestal added

8. Many new mission targets, especially in the London FARP vicinity

9. Blue/Red AI helo patrols added around London/Paris FARP/Taftanaz/Khalkhalah

10. More ships added

11. More submarines added

12. Some moving convoys added

13. Apaches added into helo ops system

14. Various unit placement issues corrected

15. Whatever else I have forgotten to list

 

It would be highly advisable to start new persistence files for this update, as it is highly likely that some units have had name changes/corrections etc.

Hopefully it all still works!

Enjoy

 


Edited by Surrexen
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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