Mission Editor Objects

[crazyeddie]

This may not be a bug but it is driving me nuts !!!!

 

If I place an static object on an airfield, say a new ammunition depot, I have to select a country for it to belong to. Say I select Russia, and I place it somewhere on the Batumi base.

 

If I now try to land a UK Tornado on that airfield it will not land, it diverts to the nearest base with no Russian Objects on it. A Russian aircraft will land, so it has to be something to do with the ownership of the static object.

 

If we want to populate airfields with new objects this is never going to work as it is at present.

 

Is there any way to overcome this ED ?

[Dusty Rhodes]

That doesn't sound like a bug the way you explain it, it sounds like the way it should be in real life. You don't land foreign/enemy planes on a foriegn/enemy airfield populated by enemy equipment.

[crazyeddie]

Cheers Dusty but you have misunderstood the problem. Each airfield has objects placed on it, buildings etc. We have the choice to add to those objects. Who the airfield belongs to at any given time is of no consequence, a hangar should not be able to stop an aircraft landing on the runway. I take the point that I would not land a NATO aircraft on a Russian runway if we were not on the same side, that is not what I am trying to do.

 

In LFC the option to place objects was the same as for DCS, but for some reason DCS does not make inanimate buildings passive, as they would be in real life, LFC did that and it worked really well for creating better, more accurate, airfields.

 

I am trying to rebuild each airfiled so that it looks a bit more like it did in real life, if I have to select and change object ownership each time I fly it will be a pointless exercise.

 

I'm sure there must be a simple solution, ED ?

[crazyeddie]

Bump.

 

Appreciate its early days with BS but any thoughts from ED or any other scenery builders out there on how to overcome this. I have tried everything I can think of with no luck.

[EvilBivol-1]

I don't think there is any simple solution. The presence of any user-placed object on an airbase determines the coalition of the airbase. If you would like to see this changed, suggest it in the wishlist, but it's hard to see ED going backward, since the entire reason to do it this way was to prevent the mission designed from having to populate airbases with useless active objects that suck up processing power.

[crazyeddie]

Evil, I get your point but this is taking away one of the better design features that we had in LFC.

 

They are inanimate objects (eye candy) - who cares what side they belong to.

 

I'm sure many of us would like to see the bases populated to a higher spec than we have at present, I am using Google Earth to find what is there now and by restructuring the Objects and Countries LUA files and by renaming several of the existing Shapes files I have found a better combination of buildings for the airfields, much as Birdy did in LFC.

 

Eye Candy is Eye Candy but it makes the whole experience better for those that want to see it improved.

 

This is what I am doing with Batumi Airbase, early days yet and I am still changing things as I go along - say you don't like it !!!

 

 

[ATTACH]23475[/ATTACH]

Edited January 7, 2009 by crazyeddie

[Gunhawk]

Coalitions et all

 

I don't think there is any simple solution. The presence of any user-placed object on an airbase determines the coalition of the airbase. If you would like to see this changed, suggest it in the wishlist, but it's hard to see ED going backward, since the entire reason to do it this way was to prevent the mission designed from having to populate airbases with useless active objects that suck up processing power.

 

Hi,

 

I am also experienting with coalitions. I believe in Lock-on one could state to whom an airbase is belonging to. If this has changed - what is about airbase where noone is having objects? I am asking because I have probs to get this GAI-Intercept logic to work. Even on distant bases, the GAI-Flight is taking off even before having a chance to get a slightest idea of the enemies direction.

 

Regards Gunhawk

[EvilBivol-1]

They are inanimate objects (eye candy) - who cares what side they belong to.

I understand, but it's the way the sim handles the database. It doesn't recognize objects as "animate" or "inamitate." It simply knows that any active or static object placed in the vicinity of an airbase will deterimine its coalition. The only thing ED could do is go backward and bring it back to the way it was in LO, which is to remove the capacity of static objects to determine coalition status. I don't know if it's something they will want to do, but you can post it in the wish list.

 

I believe in Lock-on one could state to whom an airbase is belonging to. If this has changed - what is about airbase where noone is having objects?

In LO, placing an active object around a base determined its coalition. In DCS, placing either an active or a staitc object works. If there is no user-placed object on the airbase, it's "neutral" and can be used by the first coalition that needs it.

 

I am asking because I have probs to get this GAI-Intercept logic to work. Even on distant bases, the GAI-Flight is taking off even before having a chance to get a slightest idea of the enemies direction.

Not sure. Will run a test.

[EvilBivol-1]

Just tested the GAI and everything worked fine once I added a targeting zone to the GAI flight. I set it to 75 km. If you don't want the GAI flight to appear so soon, you can set a hold value to the air group. You can also utilize triggers to activate the group.

 

Anyway, here's my test mission:

test_GAI.miz

[crazyeddie]

Thanks again Evil, I understand the problem is how the sim was designed, so be it.

 

Great shame about that, the potenial to turn what is likely to be a good sim into a great sim has been lost, I'm not going to waste any more time trying to improve the scenery in BS, back to Steel Beasts and it's excellent scenery builder.

[crazyeddie]

Another thought on this subject:

 

If the sim is designed so that an aircraft cannot land on an airfield that has opposition buildings on it - how come it can take off from that same airfield.

 

No logic there what so ever.

[Gunhawk]

GAI-Missions

 

Just tested the GAI and everything worked fine once I added a targeting zone to the GAI flight. I set it to 75 km. If you don't want the GAI flight to appear so soon, you can set a hold value to the air group. You can also utilize triggers to activate the group.

 

Anyway, here's my test mission:

 

 

Thanks,

 

I have tested this. By the way was there any reason for having two GAI flights?

I mean as I understand GAI is supposed to wait on runway and will only respawn if there are any enemy flights detected by the GAI airbase intrastructure. This means i.e. if the airbase do not have any radar on it it should not detect anything coming in very low. If on the otherhand the airbase is detected by an EWR radar on the base, the detection should be better resulting in the GAI to respawn and take of sooner to protect it.

If you need to setup a trigger-hold to prevent the GAI flight from respawning to soon what is the point of an GAI flight than at all?

 

Maybe I am missing something here but I believe the Mission Editor in Lomac, SU27 Flanker etc. has such capability to link detection radars to span i.e. a network. Maybe I am wrong and it was the Janes series that has this capability - anyhow it would be great to have this including i.e. for making campaigns more real i.e. SEAT flight taking out radars to enable subsequent strikes.

 

Regards Gunhawk

[Gunhawk]

I understand, but it's the way the sim handles the database. It doesn't recognize objects as "animate" or "inamitate." It simply knows that any active or static object placed in the vicinity of an airbase will deterimine its coalition.

 

Would this then result in changing the ownership of an airbase provided that enemy units drove by and destroy or even better in taken over the ownership of other coalitions statics objects at base? That would be cool and more the way Falcon4 campain engine is working!

 

The only thing ED could do is go backward and bring it back to the way it was in LO, which is to remove the capacity of static objects to determine coalition status. I don't know if it's something they will want to do, but you can post it in the wish list.

 

Maybe this is a better way of doing it:

 

1) Static objects will determine ownership of nearby bases (by the way - what is the definition of nearby in perimeter?)

 

2) The above situation will not change until the static unit get destoyed

(base is becoming neutral) or if active ground object is kept nearby

even will switch its ownership to enemies side. This logic could be

useful in campaigns

 

Regards Gunhawk

[crazyeddie]

Gunhawk

 

I agree with that logic in part but cannot see any point in giving static buildings a status other than okay or destroyed. They are neutral simply because they have no ability to fight back, I cannot see what advantage giving them a 'side' can have in the sim, they are just buildings - eye candy. I include trees in that, I have adapted Birdys Mod from LFC and it works fine with this sim too.

 

Who owns a base or area is determined by the Ships, Aircraft, Troops or Armour dominating that ground, not the buildings. At present you have to destroy every single opposition building on the base to allow your aircraft to land on that base, I just do not see the point in making the sim this way, it completely destroys any chance to be creative with the scenery.

 

I have tried just about every change to existing files I can to see if it can be overcome but no luck, the aircraft can take off from the base, fly around it then off it goes to the far flung corners of the earth where there are no opposition buildings.

 

It's daft !!!

[crazyeddie]

Does anyone know which file contains the data that makes an aircraft divert away from an airfield, that might be the place to start trying to resolve this ?