Military Assets for DCS by Currenthill

[Baoyi Mei]

3分钟前，Zahnatom说：

YJ-21 is still a ballistic missile. it might go faster but its still ballistic. SM-6 realistically has the best chance of intercepting it here as it is faster with more range than SM-2 and hits targets lower than SM-3 so this behaviour is good. fast does not mean invisible or uninterceptable.
YJ-21仍然是弹道导弹。它可能会跑得更快，但仍然是弹道的。 SM-6 实际上最有可能在这里拦截它，因为它比 SM-2 速度更快，射程更远，并且命中的目标比 SM-3 低，因此这种行为很好。快速并不意味着看不见或不可拦截。

This is true for conventional ballistic missiles, but if the YJ21 can maneuver and change its trajectory, then the SM6 will not be able to intercept it.
对于常规弹道导弹来说确实如此，但如果YJ21可以机动并改变弹道，那么SM6就无法拦截它。

[Zahnatom]

1 minute ago, Baoyi Mei said:

This is true for conventional ballistic missiles, but if the YJ21 can maneuver and change its trajectory, then the SM6 will not be able to intercept it.
对于常规弹道导弹来说确实如此，但如果YJ21可以机动并改变弹道，那么SM6就无法拦截它。

This is the same as with AS-24 vs Patriot. When you're going fast, you cant maneuver a lot. the slower interceptor can maneuver a lot. reaction time is also not an issue here. sure there will be situations where SM-6 would miss but "SM6 will not be able to intercept it" as a blanket statement is just wrong

[HighMaintenanceB]

2 minutes ago, Baoyi Mei said:

I am curious that all offensive missiles are limited to a height of 30,000 meters. The SM3 can go higher than 30,000 meters. 30,000 meters is high for an aircraft, but it is obviously too short for a missile.
我很好奇所有进攻性导弹的高度都限制在3万米以内。 SM3可以飞到30,000米以上的高度。 3万米对于飞机来说很高，但对于导弹来说显然太短了。

DCS 非官方模组的导弹有海拔限制。因为Currenthill 不是 Eagle Dynamics 的员工，他没权用官方本有的弹道式导弹的动力学和轨道。他只能改装巡航式导弹的动力学和数据；DCS里的巡航式导弹有飞行高度的限制。

I explained to him that CH does not work for Eagle Dynamics and therefore doesn't have access to the ballistic missile preset files (flight parameters, trajectory, etc) and that he instead has to resort to modifying the flight parameters of cruise missiles.  Cruise missiles in DCS, as we know, have a ceiling; anything beyond that limit and I don't think it'll work correctly.   

[Zahnatom]

1 minute ago, HighMaintenanceB said:

DCS 非官方模组的导弹有海拔限制。因为Currenthill 不是 Eagle Dynamics 的员工，他没权用官方本有的弹道式导弹的动力学和轨道。他只能改装巡航式导弹的动力学和数据；DCS里的巡航式导弹有飞行高度的限制。

I explained to him that CH does not work for Eagle Dynamics and therefore doesn't have access to the ballistic missile preset files (flight parameters, trajectory, etc) and that he instead has to resort to modifying the flight parameters of cruise missiles.  Cruise missiles in DCS, as we know, have a ceiling; anything beyond that limit and I don't think it'll work correctly.   

Yeah its annoying. it applies to SAMs as well; this really got on my nerves while implementing Aster 30 Block 2

[gabriel]

Can someone more experienced tell me how I put FA-18 fighters on the deck of a US aircraft carrier?

[LACMenjoyer]

48 minutes ago, gabriel said:

Can someone more experienced tell me how I put FA-18 fighters on the deck of a US aircraft carrier?

Put the carrier down, put an F-18 or another carrier capable craft right next to it, then change the aircraft to ‘takeoff from parking hot’ and it should re-align itself with the carrier deck. 

Then you’re good to go. Grim Reapers also has helpful tutorials on youtube to walk you through this 

[Esac_mirmidon]

So, i´ve detected a conflict, very weird one between CH packs ( USA-UKR-RUSSIA ) and the A-4 Skyhawk Mod.

A friend of mine edited a mission, (he has non of CH mods), on a carrier. When i´ve spawned on the deck and trying to rearm the A-4 with Fuel tanks, no one were available. They were greyed out. Without those CH mods, the very same mission, i can rearm and i can use those fuel tanks. Is only the 150-300-400 Fuel Tanks from the A-4 that were greyed out. 

But, this is the weirdest thing, if I create a mission, i have no problem to see the Fuel Tanks available, but on MP i see some clients fuel tanks taking the shapes of other weapons , like the 6 tube vikhr missile from the Ka-52.

CH, do you have any idea where the conflict could be with the Skyhawk fuel tanks? I could appreciate any help.

[Virpx21]

@currenthill Thanks again for all the work you've done, especially all the fixes that had to be done in 2.9.5. Don't take this question as rushing you or anything, just wondering is all. Do you plan on releasing a small patch to fix the THAAD radar like you did recently for the Patriot radar or is it best to expect that to come with the next full USA pack update?

Thanks again and no rush!

[currenthill]

9 minutes ago, Virpx21 said:

@currenthill Thanks again for all the work you've done, especially all the fixes that had to be done in 2.9.5. Don't take this question as rushing you or anything, just wondering is all. Do you plan on releasing a small patch to fix the THAAD radar like you did recently for the Patriot radar or is it best to expect that to come with the next full USA pack update?

Thanks again and no rush!

No worries! Unfortunately the THAAD issue and the LTAMDS issue were two totally separated issues. The LTAMDS was an easy fix since it only required a parameter change. The THAAD issue on the other hand is most likely caused by something in the DCS core, which I cannot change in any way. That's why I reproduced the issue with core assets (the DCS core Patriot system) and reported it to ED. We can now only wait for ED to investigate and fix the issue.

Until it is fixed you'll just have to make sure your THAAD site isn't attacked by more than 15 incoming threats.

Here is my bug report: 

 

Edited July 19, 2024 by currenthill

[Virpx21]

3 hours ago, currenthill said:

No worries! Unfortunately the THAAD issue and the LTAMDS issue were two totally separated issues. The LTAMDS was an easy fix since it only required a parameter change. The THAAD issue on the other hand is most likely caused by something in the DCS core, which I cannot change in any way. That's why I reproduced the issue with core assets (the DCS core Patriot system) and reported it to ED. We can now only wait for ED to investigate and fix the issue.

Until it is fixed you'll just have to make sure your THAAD site isn't attacked by more than 15 incoming threats.

Here is my bug report: 

 

 

Haha, ok that is extremely unfortunate. All the good stuff that you modders are working on just keeps getting broke. 

I am holding out hope that the AIM-260 & AIM-120D are not partially broken due to a core issue as well and I'll see a fix for those soon.
I have some very massive campaigns that have taken months to work on which heavily rely on so many modern mods (a LOT from you especially) and ED just keeps breaking them. 

For your mods, I think I'll just stick with 2.9.5 for a good while, since they're thankfully still working properly there.

**EDIT** If you're not aware, I just found out by accident that naval assets for at least USA are broken as well. So yup, definitely sticking with 2.9.5

Edited July 19, 2024 by Virpx21

[ghashpl]

Hello (sorry for asking this, probably was answered before)

 

Could you bring those assets (or some of them) into the core DCS? The same as Massun did?

I'm asking this because it would boost the ground assets 100 times.

Amazing work!

[tripod3]

2 hours ago, ghashpl said:

Hello (sorry for asking this, probably was answered before)

 

Could you bring those assets (or some of them) into the core DCS? The same as Massun did?

I'm asking this because it would boost the ground assets 100 times.

Amazing work!

The flames have recently died down. But it's a good try.

Look a few pages ago, there was a discussion, but it seems no one has officially asked devs yet

[EchoOneOne]

17 hours ago, HighMaintenanceB said:

I assume this is AI-only; you, as a player, cannot use the LRASM, JASSM, or AARGM-ER on official ED aircraft.  

It works because its modified JSOW and HARM replacement. 

[Timex3]

3 hours ago, tripod3 said:

The flames have recently died down. But it's a good try.

Look a few pages ago, there was a discussion, but it seems no one has officially asked devs yet

CH doesn't want ED to use his assets. CH has created his Assets because ED is extremely slow when it comes to their Combined Arms Assets. I've been a Member of DCS for many years. ED hasn't updated their Assets in years, and again this is why CH has created all of his Assets!

Timex 3

[HighMaintenanceB]

6 hours ago, EchoOneOne said:

It works because its modified JSOW and HARM replacement. 

I see. So is it a straight 3D model replacement or did you actually change the code too?  

[HighMaintenanceB]

 

I don't know if anyone has been having this issue or if it's a me problem

[cao990]

The same problem

[ivan-ivanov-1902]

Спойлер

nullnullnullnullnullnullnullnull

We have such an expression: The chickens are laughing.These models are about 20 years old.

 

[tripod3]

4 hours ago, ivan-ivanov-1902 said:

We have such an expression: The chickens are laughing.These models are about 20 years old.

There is a museum of old computer games inside DCS.

19 hours ago, HighMaintenanceB said:

I don't know if anyone has been having this issue or if it's a me problem

Checked with clean modfolder - all ok

[tanax]

Good evening, I have isolated the mod "US Submarine Pack version 1.0.0" which is responsible for the defective "Project 22800 Karakurt" textures on my system. Once disabled the textures are normal

[currenthill]

1 hour ago, tanax said:

Good evening, I have isolated the mod "US Submarine Pack version 1.0.0" which is responsible for the defective "Project 22800 Karakurt" textures on my system. Once disabled the textures are normal

Thanks for the info!

[RWC]

3 hours ago, tanax said:

Good evening, I have isolated the mod "US Submarine Pack version 1.0.0" which is responsible for the defective "Project 22800 Karakurt" textures on my system. Once disabled the textures are normal

Aren't these Admirals mods ?

[cao990]

There is a conflict between Sturgeon Class Submarine and Project 22800 Karakurt due to the same hull texture name.

 

Edited July 21, 2024 by cao990

[cao990]

Suggest adding a prefix name for the ship in the future to avoid duplicate texture file names

Edited July 21, 2024 by cao990

[tripod3]

Usually files from CH's mods follow this rule, so this is rather an exception