Ramp Start Mission Timing

[WarriorX]

I am seeing a problem when missions that offer a Ramp Start, with multiple other friendly assets working together with you the pilot starting out on the Ramp.

 

The problem is that all the other assets are ready to go, and start moving out when you are still in your cold dark plane. By the time you are up and ready to taxi, the other assets are already in the air and/or already on station.

 

Falcon 4 had a setup where if you chose Ramp Start, then you entered the mission 15 minutes before the other friendly entities were active. This gave you time to get everything set up, and be ready when the AI assets "came alive"

 

Falcon 4 also had options for Taxi Start= 5 min before, and Runway start= 1 minute before.

 

I hate being late to a good party, so I hope this can be addressed.

 

Thanks.

[Stretch]

To be fair, due to Falcon's dynamic campaign, this isn't exactly the case. Ground assets didn't sit around and patiently wait for you to light the fires; one of the selling points of Falcon 4 is that the war was always going on, whether you were waiting for your INS to align or reading a debrief or flying.

 

The bubble -- that's a different matter. Ground assets don't "de-aggregate" from the bubble until you are within a certain distance from them. But even aggregated up into the bubble they still engage in war in a high-level sense.

 

That all being said, like DCS: BS, DCS: Warthog leaves it up to the mission designer to decide whether you ramp or start taxi. If you really like a particular mission and want to ramp it, you could move the clock back a bit and change the first waypoint of your flight to be a ramp start. Might not work for all missions though.

[Steel Jaw]

Hey Stretch, you guys over at he 72nd gonna ditch old Falcon AF and transition to the A10C?

[Stretch]

Ironically I've been able to fly the Hawg with my fellow e-Marines in the 15th every night, but I haven't yet fielded a flight with anyone in the 72nd. A lot of them seem to be on the fence about DCS: Warthog due to its lack of a dynamic campaign and a 28,600-pound-force afterburning turbofan.

[Steel Jaw]

Yeah Im seeing alot of resistance to DCS A10C among online VFWs.

[Geskes]

This is up to the missionbuilder, and it is not hard to implement at all.

 

What is it with all the falcon 4 campaign love.. Especially as a VFW I'd say you can get much more value out of a designed mission instead of a random sorty trough a wall of migs that quadruples once you get close to it. I think DCS offers a lot of value for VFW, including commander positions, artillery and JTAC positions. The editor has the ability to create very complex scenarios. For training sessions you can monitor everything from bank to altitude to speed and much more for evaluating student performance, all trough mission editor design. Additionally as DCS series grows, you get more platforms your VFW can use and maybe eventually... dynamic campaign. A thing that would really be cool in DCS to add for a VFW is something like a World Master position, a guy that can add and adjust AI live into the mission.

 

*Forgot to mention: Falcon FM is childsplay compared to DCS.

Edited November 12, 2010 by Geskes

[Stretch]

There's nothing complex about the love for a DC, Geskes. Having a dynamic campaign means it's easy to fly a mission I've never flown before, in a tactical and strategic environment I've never experienced before. You don't need a mission designer or a "World Master." All you need is a guy with a campaign who can host a flight.

 

Also, there's something more "real" about flying in a battlefield that has a true fog of war. If I beat a DCS campaign and I want to fly it again, I'm going to know that there's an SA-8 hidden behind that hill, or that the tanks are actually 2 klicks south of the steerpoint, or whatever. If I start a new Falcon campaign everything is new again.

 

P.S. If you take off in your F-16 and see a wall of MiGs, don't treat it as a shortcoming of the game engine! Do what they do in real life! Turn around, land your jet, and create a new sweep package to take care of the threat! THAT'S the beauty of a dynamic campaign.

 

P.P.S. No need to pick a flight over flight models. Falcon's FM was written back when a Pentium II was the "bees' knees" (as they said back then), so it's not really a fair fight anyway. We are merely discussing the merits of a dynamic campaign; we are not trying to say which game is more realistic.

 

P.P.P.S. ACTUALLY the original point of the thread was how to ramp in DCS, but hey, major threadjacking.

Edited November 12, 2010 by Stretch

[Geskes]

I understand it of course because I have played many falcon campaigns. But I just thought that specifically VFW's would be looking more for realism so wouldn't mind trading the campaign for more realism. I always had the idea they mostly fly controlled scenarios. There is already random mission generator now. Its a step.

[Grimes]

Warrior, try not to mention Falcon 4 when asking a question, everyone seems to get all confused and caught up in that discussion :D. But to answer your question. Eagle Dynamics created missions historically have built in triggers to account for however long it takes the player to start the aircraft or fly to a specific waypoint. So while you might see other AI aircraft take off and get into position it doesn't mean that they will "leave the player behind." They likely have hold waypoints or even player drive commands from the "F10 Other Menu." Usually everything starts to get into motion once the player is at least airborne or x distance away from homeplate.

 

 

On the offtopic stuff:

Falcon's system and the DCS system each have their strongpoints. Aspects of randomness of the falcon system can be replicated within DCS. However this is purely "within the mission" and there are only a finite number of possibilities. I guess the trick is to not get so caught up over the lack of one feature. Believe me, I'd love to have a dynamic campaign like falcon has, but we aren't getting it just yet. In the mean time I'm gonna let it loose within our highly controllable mission editor that we do have.

[WarriorX]

Warrior, try not to mention Falcon 4 when asking a question, everyone seems to get all confused and caught up in that discussion :D.

I see what you mean..good advice. Thank you for your detailed explanation on the OP topic.

[Ripcord]

Also, there's something more "real" about flying in a battlefield that has a true fog of war. If I beat a DCS campaign and I want to fly it again, I'm going to know that there's an SA-8 hidden behind that hill, or that the tanks are actually 2 klicks south of the steerpoint, or whatever. If I start a new Falcon campaign everything is new again.

 

Actually I would say that if you beat a WELL-CRAFTED and WELL POPULATED DCS campaign and decide you then want to fly it again, then the missions in it will contain enough variable content so that you will not know the exact layout of all those SAMS and tanks and everybody. Plus they should contain enough different types of missions in EACH STAGE of the campaign so that you aren't reflying the same ones if you pass through that same stage a couple times. There is a LOT of room to produce some amazing content in this sim, but it does require a little effort on the part of the mission builder/campaign designer.

 

It is just that the little mini-campaigns that they released with the beta are nothing more than basic appetizers. Somebody will release a major 100 mission campaign one of these days, jammed with variable AI and threats, and we will miss those dynamic campaigns quite a bit less -- sure we will still miss them somewhat, but far less (after all, this is a purpose built jet, not a multirole fighter).

 

Ripcord

Edited December 2, 2010 by Ripcord

[Frederf]

That's pretty optimistic. DCS:BS is well post-release and shares the same problems that DCS:A-10C is showing so far. You'll turn colors you've never seen before holding your breath for ED to make a competent mission.

 

Insultingly close starting locations, missing VNAV, impossible DTOTs, suicidal flight plans, laughable weapons loads, non-existent time allowances, etc. are all hallmarks of the default "series of similarly-themed scenarios" in both DCS sims.

 

Variability and branching are aspects that DCS can actually deliver, just seldom used because it's a completely pain in the butt to design.

 

Where DCS really falls flat is its instance-based nature. The player-in-cockpit reality and the battlefield reality are inexorably tied together unlike Falcon and BoB II: WoV where the battlefield reality was capable of existing whether or not the in-cockpit reality was running or not. Until DCS achieves this separation it won't be anything greater than a pretty IL-2 clone with jet engines.

[Ripcord]

Frederf, no arguments from me on any of your points.

 

I would like to add that I am not holding my breath waiting for ED to make any more mission content. However I do think that the user-created content will be pretty good, though, once the finished A10C product hits the streets.

 

Didn't completely catch your meaning at the end -- in-cockpit reality vs battlefield reality. By that you mean the fact that, once the mission ends the sim ends? That is, the battlefield sim doesn't continue before and after your mission/flight, such as it does in F4? Nobody would argue with you there either -- I think a lot could be overcome if they would finally design something to track outcomes of missions and then relay that into the next missions. By that I mean damage tracking, status and location of units on the map for the next mission. Even Janes FA-18 had some basic damage tracking for ships and stationary objects/structures.

 

Ripcord

[Frederf]

It would be nice to pass variables between missions in a campaign. "This tank was destroyed" sort of thing. That would be a workable level of persistence.