Force_Feedback Posted September 9, 2005 Share Posted September 9, 2005 About the .lua files, which are used to define loadour restrictions for the su-25t? I need to experiment with some "non default" loadouts (science fiction :p), but can't find the .lua that restricts the su-25t loadouts Creedence Clearwater Revival:worthy: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alfa Posted September 9, 2005 Share Posted September 9, 2005 About the .lua files, which are used to define loadour restrictions for the su-25t? I need to experiment with some "non default" loadouts (science fiction :p), but can't find the .lua that restricts the su-25t loadouts There are no such restrictions. The lua editing I am refering to, has to do with defining weapons/launcher combinations....i.e. "pairing" them, so that they become a unity that can be assigned to an aircraft pylon in the Meinit. Making this "pairing" only in the Meinit, will make the launcher/weapon show up OK on the wing of an aircraft in the Payload Editor, but will not appear "in-game". Cheers, - JJ. JJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Force_Feedback Posted September 9, 2005 Share Posted September 9, 2005 There are no such restrictions. The lua editing I am refering to, has to do with defining weapons/launcher combinations....i.e. "pairing" them, so that they become a unity that can be assigned to an aircraft pylon in the Meinit. Making this "pairing" only in the Meinit, will make the launcher/weapon show up OK on the wing of an aircraft in the Payload Editor, but will not appear "in-game". Cheers, - JJ. I referred to the same "pairing" just used an other term, now please tell us, mortals who aren't used to these complementary .luas where they are. BTW, if a need for ridiculour loadouts is present in any of you, you can edit the number of ordnance a pylon holds (let's say 1 a-10 aim9 pylon can hold 10 aim9s, or 50 for that matter. Just don't forget to lower the weight of 1 aim9 in the Meint if you play to hook up 100 of them on the poor A-10) Creedence Clearwater Revival:worthy: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alfa Posted September 9, 2005 Share Posted September 9, 2005 I referred to the same "pairing" just used an other term, now please tell us, mortals who aren't used to these complementary .luas where they are. In the "Bazar" folder. - JJ. JJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenan Posted September 9, 2005 Share Posted September 9, 2005 So, has anyone managed to make this mod working? :) [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Commanding Officer of: 2nd Company 1st financial guard battalion "Mrcine" See our squads here and our . Croatian radio chat for DCS World Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alfa Posted September 9, 2005 Share Posted September 9, 2005 So, has anyone managed to make this mod working? :) I doubt it :) I have given it a try, but the more I have looked into this, the less I think it is possible at all. The problem with rocket pods is that it is a case of having to first associate the rocket with its launch tube - and then associate two of these combinations with a pylon shape :rolleyes: ....and I dont think it can be done. Cheers, - JJ. JJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alfa Posted September 10, 2005 Share Posted September 10, 2005 LAU-61*3 ? Hehe good catch Wolverine, but I considered that as well :) . The thing is that the "LAU-61*3" entry uses a(rather ugly) shape file called "mbd-3-lau-61.cmd" - this includes the rack + 3 launch pods in a single 3D model. I.e. for this it is a matter of associating the weapon(rockets) with a single combined rack/pods shape. For the Su-33 twin S-25 MER you would need to combine: - a launch rack - two launch containers - two S-25 rockets Like I said earlier, it is no problem making such a combination in the Meinit and get it to show up in the Payload Editor, but in order for it to show up and work "in-game", the composition has to be made and defined in varies .lua files.....and it does not seem possible to associate more than two types of things with each other in these - i.e. weapon(s) > rack or launch pod. Cheers, - JJ. JJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
504MrWolf Posted September 10, 2005 Author Share Posted September 10, 2005 hehe yeah i also went down that route and found the same conclusion. Iam fumbling about in the dark abit as i have no programming knowledge but i enjoy a challenge and like to learn so here i am :D I will have a word with Chizh and see if he knows how it can be done. www.VVS504.co.uk www.lockonskins.co.uk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kula66 Posted September 10, 2005 Share Posted September 10, 2005 You don't risk an aircraft you've got very few numbers of to make it do something it was never really intended to do. The Royal Navy did in th Falklands ... FRS1 doing A2G with cluster bombs and DA bombs. And there were very few of them indeed - and they were at the end of an 8000 mile re-supply line. When the needs must. Carriers are good because of their flexibility - they can be tasked for everything. Agreed the Kuz was designed to support SSBN bastions ... just as the Invincibles were design for ASW in the GIUK gap - and they've been a tasked to do just about everything else! When you have a limited variety of a/c available ... they have to do all roles A2A, A2G, tanker ... recon. IF Su-33s were only supposed to be used for A2A ... they wouldn't have bothered developing an A2G capability! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGTharos Posted September 10, 2005 Share Posted September 10, 2005 The Su-33 didn't have any A2G capability developed - it's a navalized Su-27, so that just came with the package and was never used. Why isn't the F-15C doing A2G when it certainly DOES have the capability? Insofar as falklands go, the Harrier was made for A2G FIRST, wether you like to admit this or not. The fact that they were unable to defend some of their ships from taking hits shows that they're not good interceptors IMO. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kula66 Posted September 10, 2005 Share Posted September 10, 2005 "The Su-33 didn't have any A2G capability developed" - hmm not convinced! As we know, nearly all high performance a/c have some A2G ... especially ones deployed on CVs Why does the F15Cs not do A2G ... some do! Look at Israel! The 15 doesn't do A2g in US service because there are plenty of other platforms that do it better. On a CV (which is what we are talking about), the limited types of a/c have to do it all ... hence F/A-18, F-14, Sea Harrier etc! Well, the GR3 and the SHAR are very different! One dedicated A2G, the other being for a small carrier jack of all trades FRS (Fighter/Recce/Strike) - complete with radar! And it did prove a VERY good interceptor ... its kill ratio was (from memory) about 23:0! And out numbered about 5:1 There are a number of reasons it couldn't protect the whole fleet: no AWACs, small numbers, poor loiter time, no BVR missile ... in the circumstances it did VERY well! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGTharos Posted September 10, 2005 Share Posted September 10, 2005 You don't have to be convinced. The Su-33 had no A2G capability developed, only what came with the original Su-27, end of story. As for the F-15C's that do 'A2G', those are equipped with far more capability than the original F-15C AFAIK just for that purpose. As for the GR3 and SHAR being 'very different' ... sorry. The aircraft was developed for A2G, and it will do A2G despite any impression to the contrary - that is it's reason for existing, and that's simply that - it's an A2G aircraft FIRST, and anything else second, regardless of 'dedication'. Like the Su-33 is an interceptor first, by far. ;) [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kula66 Posted September 10, 2005 Share Posted September 10, 2005 As for the GR3 and SHAR being 'very different' ... sorry. The aircraft was developed for A2G, and it will do A2G despite any impression to the contrary - that is it's reason for existing, and that's simply that - it's an A2G aircraft FIRST, and anything else second, regardless of 'dedication'. Sorry, GGT, you are wrong here ... The FRS1/FA2 are primarily A2A ... hence removal of A2G features (laser ranger) and addition of A2A radar - and will haul iron as secondary roles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MBot Posted September 10, 2005 Share Posted September 10, 2005 I agree with Kula66 on this one. While the FRS1 had decent "dumb" attack capabilitys ( see medium alt level bombing attacks against Stanley airfield ), its primary role was air-air. The SHARs mission in the 80s was to drive off shadowing martime patrol aircraft from the helicopter carrying ASW carriers ( hence originaly only 6 FRS1 embarked on british ASW carriers ). Quite simmilar to the Su-33 by the way ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kula66 Posted September 10, 2005 Share Posted September 10, 2005 Also did toss bombing for AAA suppression of Stanley defences ... >>Quite simmilar to the Su-33 by the way << Exactly ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenan Posted September 10, 2005 Share Posted September 10, 2005 What really puzzles me, is the way some people downplay AG capability conisted of 'only' dumb bombs and rockets. Those planes can drop heavy bombs and therefore CAN be used for AG scenarios. It doesn't neccessarily includes fighting modern SAM systems etc. but say tanks, truck convoys, compunds etc. SU33 can carry and successfully deploy 8 big sized cluster bombs (just for an example). Should we just say it's useless and not to be used in AG scenario because it can't deploy some fancy JDAM/laser guided/whatever missiles 2000$ bombs? Hell no! :D [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Commanding Officer of: 2nd Company 1st financial guard battalion "Mrcine" See our squads here and our . Croatian radio chat for DCS World Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGTharos Posted September 10, 2005 Share Posted September 10, 2005 How about 'because its pilots aren't trained to do this'? ;) It actually takes a lot more to drop bombs RL than it does in LOMAC, but you don't have to take my word for it: Find the MLU manual and read it for yourselves. The Su-33's AG capability is limited, other planes can do it better, and there are too few 33's to risk doing the job that a HUGE LOAD of other aircraft can do. I think the fact that upgrades which would have enhanced the 33's capabilities were cancelled speaks volumes about the 33's intended role and how likely it is to be used in an AG scenario at ALL. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldcrew Posted September 10, 2005 Share Posted September 10, 2005 and round and round we go. Are you talking about the plane or the Russians? Can the plane do a2g? yes. Do the russians use it for A2g? No. end of story Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenan Posted September 10, 2005 Share Posted September 10, 2005 How about 'because its pilots aren't trained to do this'? ;) It actually takes a lot more to drop bombs RL than it does in LOMAC, but you don't have to take my word for it: Find the MLU manual and read it for yourselves. I was talking about the plane, not the pilots. And what is the MLU manual and where can I get it? Thx! [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Commanding Officer of: 2nd Company 1st financial guard battalion "Mrcine" See our squads here and our . Croatian radio chat for DCS World Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kula66 Posted September 10, 2005 Share Posted September 10, 2005 The Su-33's AG capability is limited, other planes can do it better, and there are too few 33's to risk doing the job that a HUGE LOAD of other aircraft can do. The Su-33 had no A2G capability developed So which is it? None or limited? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KILSEK Posted September 10, 2005 Share Posted September 10, 2005 Hi all. and round and round we go. Are you talking about the plane or the Russians? Can the plane do a2g? yes. Do the russians use it for A2g? No. end of story I agree with 99% of the above statement, all except the end of story. I pretty much said the same thing. IRL you are right, no military would consider it an option. But in the game it's there, and you have unlimited aircraft in a game. There is a line and it gets blurred alot with what is real and what you would like it to do. It all comes down to playability. Why it is not end of story is because of this. How real do you want your sim? What is the level of realism/playability you want? What is acceptable to you? And as far as modding weap weights, why don't you just check the little box that says "unlimited weaps"? -KILSEK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alfa Posted September 10, 2005 Share Posted September 10, 2005 So which is it? None or limited? The Su-33 has a limited air-to-ground capability of which none was developed specifically for this aircraft - but as GG said, came with the avionics package it inherited from the Su-27S. Pay attention Kula66 ;) Cheers, - JJ. JJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kula66 Posted September 10, 2005 Share Posted September 10, 2005 So we are all in agreement that the Su-33 HAS got an A2G capabilty ... GREAT! And therefoer CAN be used for A2G missions ... oh joy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGTharos Posted September 10, 2005 Share Posted September 10, 2005 ... but it is highly unlikely that it ever WILL be used for A2G missions, for numerous and very good reasons ;) [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kula66 Posted September 10, 2005 Share Posted September 10, 2005 Any any scenario you can envisage ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts