Are static scenery objects are confusing?

[Gloom Demon]

Am I the only one who finds the static scenery objects confusing? I mean there are helicopters, aircraft and ground vehicles that act as scenery, not as real objects. And only when you destroy them you find out that it was a building, not a unit. And you have wasted a missile. Maybe the player should get a score when he kills a stationary scenery unit which is also available as a unit in the game?

 

I am not complaining, however it is a shame to get to an enemy airfield and spend half of your Vikhrs on static objects which have no influence on the outcome of the mission. And telling them apart from real units at a distance is not an easy matter.

[Flagrum]

Am I the only one who finds the static scenery objects confusing? I mean there are helicopters, aircraft and ground vehicles that act as scenery, not as real objects. And only when you destroy them you find out that it was a building, not a unit. And you have wasted a missile. Maybe the player should get a score when he kills a stationary scenery unit which is also available as a unit in the game?

 

I am not complaining, however it is a shame to get to an enemy airfield and spend half of your Vikhrs on static objects which have no influence on the outcome of the mission. And telling them apart from real units at a distance is not an easy matter.

That is all a matter of what the mission designer had in mind and how he implemented his ideas.

[Bushmanni]

If you want to make an airfield capture mission or raid on enemy airfield where you are tasked with destroying all enemy assets at the airfield the built in planes and stuff become a problem and there's nothing a mission designer can do about it. I'd like to see them gone also. At least all the static stuff should be clearly civilian.

[Flagrum]

If you want to make an airfield capture mission or raid on enemy airfield where you are tasked with destroying all enemy assets at the airfield the built in planes and stuff become a problem and there's nothing a mission designer can do about it. I'd like to see them gone also. At least all the static stuff should be clearly civilian.

So that the airfields in all other missions look even more sterile and deserted? Nah ... please not.

 

Then it would be perhaps better to provide a better mission briefing that identifies the primary assets to be destroyed.

[Gloom Demon]

I am not a mission designer, but maybe it is possible to place something nearby these static objects and make them explode on mission start so that they will be destroyed?

[Flagrum]

I am not a mission designer, but maybe it is possible to place something nearby these static objects and make them explode on mission start so that they will be destroyed?

Yes, that is possible. But it will leave burning and smoking rubble, though.

[ENO]

 

I am not complaining, however it is a shame to get to an enemy airfield and spend half of your Vikhrs on static objects which have no influence on the outcome of the mission. And telling them apart from real units at a distance is not an easy matter.

 

So basically you are complaining.

 

Which is fine, you know. You are allowed to do that. I think most of us have had the same problem- but with time you start to see a pattern in the base configurations and can tell what is static and what is valid.

[Gloom Demon]

So basically you are complaining.

 

No I'm not ;-)

I just fail to admit that I am very poor at spotting targets and telling them apart. On numerous occasions, for example, I have to leave tanks alone because I can't tell Abrams apart from T-72... shame on me...

[NoCarrier]

No I'm not ;-)

I just fail to admit that I am very poor at spotting targets and telling them apart. On numerous occasions, for example, I have to leave tanks alone because I can't tell Abrams apart from T-72... shame on me...

Pro tip: if the tank's plastered with ERA, it's Russian... :smartass:

[ENO]

Gloom- my suggestion to you is you spend some time in the "free view" F11 and look at the various bases and pick out "templates" or "patterns" of vehicle layouts at the bases. Do it outside of the mission environment... just go into the editor, save the mission as a test.miz... then click "fly mission."

 

Then you can go around all the untouched, vanilla bases and see for yourself...

 

Quite often you'll see BTRs parked up very close to buildings at EXACTLY perpendicular angles... at uniform spacing. These will be inert objects.

 

Once you've seen a few airbases I think you'll very quickly pick out the patterns.

 

As for your other ID struggles- well, again... one blob on a display looks like any other- but frequently you need to match the fact that that blob is there, at that specific location, with your target area and information in the briefing about friendly forces.

 

Many mission designers- understanding that we're not all professionals- will frequently leave "friendly forces visible" on the map- so you can match what you're looking at with friendly positions.

[kk0425]

Decoys exist in the real world too.

[ENO]

Yes- but as decoys... not parked next to critical infrastructure.

 

I mean, in theory... why would any armored vehicle at an air base be considered non-viable?

 

I'm a bit surprised there are no actual "decoys" available in DCS since they were / are excellent ways of protecting viable targets and attracting ordinance that quite frequently takes a lot of time (and substantial risk) to get on otherwise valuable targets.

 

Berms and decoys- not to mention being able to park vehicles inside static structures would be a nice addition (as mentioned in wishlist).

 

But to the OP and back on topic... just get used to what common statics are at airbases and leave them alone. They're very often near base structures and admin looking buildings- not out in the open between runways or near taxiways.