Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About RocketmanAL

  • Rank
    Junior Member
  1. So I tried this mission several months ago and while I questioned the mission concept (albeit innovative and nice idea), it was pretty straight forward jump in the cockpit and fly. Last week I went back and tried it again and found that a bunch of cinematic elements had been added. Watching aircraft do aerobatics from a ground view is very cool in concept, and I'm sure works well on a monitor. However, in VR it can be VERY disorientating and probably for some painful. Having the view forcefully moved while in VR is a recipe for vertigo and I had to quit out before actually jumping in the je
  2. In testing a mission I put together I have an enemy flight entering an area where friendlies have been operating. I have the enemy flight set to active the en route task "CAP" if blue forces are still in an area, then deactivate it with the"CAP-x" task if they leave the area. I've done this successfully before in other missions, and I went back to double-check the scripting was correct. Now, the "CAP" task doesn't seem to cancel. Even after leaving the area, the enemy aircraft continues to follow and attempt to shoot me down. I have messages letting me know when the enemy plane changes stat
  3. Object type name change messing up old saves; also causing crashing See my thread below where I had a mission using the Type 54 that I could not load into the ME. Turns out that the object type names were changed by Deka at some point. This changed caused the ME to look for an object type that didn't exist, and delete the unit. In my case I had a helo landing on the ship, so DCS got hung-up trying to figure out what to do. All old missions will have this issue I think. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=287771 Manually changing the object type name fixed the issue, but you have
  4. Sounds like I'll be manually editing at least a couple of missions. As I had them carefully scripted as part of the mission.
  5. Thanks man! Really appreciate it. I have a few more missions with Deka ships, though I don't think any involve helos landing on them. Do I need to go in a manually change the name? Or is a patch for this expected?
  6. I have a mission I'm working on as part of a campaign. I re-visited it after a few months and now I'm unable to load it into the ME, or into it as a mission. It appears to get stuck on the loading screen and never gets into the mission or ME screen. When attempting to close DCS it gives me the "Do you want to save" window, but if I try and save it under a new name it doesn't actually save it. I have multiple versions of the missions that I saved as I progressed, but all of them have the same behavior. The missions immediately before and after work fine. Something specific with this mission.
  7. Sorry for the delayed response, wasn't really watching this thred after the first week or so. You can create your own templates. It's the bottom section of the templates window. Just set-up a site like I have in the guide, or in your own style, and save it to have it avaliable for future uses.
  8. Sorry for the late reply, honestly stopped paying attention to this thread. In my experience adding the BIG BIRD significantly improves the SA-10's ability to engage higher altitude and longer range targets. The CLAM SHELL is better for low-altitude, but if you put it's detection range next to the BIG BIRD it's significantly outclassed.
  9. In running a mission on Syria, I had 135MPRS tankers set to CTJF. They refused to respond to anyone trying to contact them. Eventually, I figured out being set as "CTJF" was the issue. After setting to USA they work fine again. So there is some disconnect with that particular country setting. Attached mission shows that. Shell and Texaco are exactly the same 135MPRS. The only difference is the country of origin. Testing with JF-17, Hornet, and Tomcat confirms that you can reach Texaco (USA) but not Shell (CTJF). Might mean there are similar issues with other units, like AWACS, but wasn't ab
  10. Thanks for the insight! What data is passed to the launchers? Heading and range? 3D coords? What is the data rate? Maybe it's better to characterize it has there is no ability for the player controlled launchers to see an active feed from the search radar? The fact that Deka had to give the HQ-7 its own dedicated imaginary search radar indicates that they were not able to tap into the battery search radar feed directly to show the player. If the data is available, but not the live feed, that would be useful at least for verbal cueing. Putting multiple batteries in the same group is a soluti
  11. Thanks for passing it forward! I honestly didn't expect anyone of note to see it, really just wanted to get some discussion going and some ideas out there. So I'm glad it will hopefully be useful. If I can help with testing or anything I'm happy to help make the game better.
  12. I'm making this thread as a result of many months of testing and contemplation of DCS air defense units. I know that this will be long and probably only a handful of people will read the whole thing. However, I hope at least one dev will take notice as I truly believe CA can be made into something so much greater than the sum of its parts. Just to preface this, I have extensive experience with DCS air defense units and CA as a mission maker, operator, and as a guide maker. My guides include SEAD reference guides, CA guide videos, and flare effectiveness studies. F-18C Flare Effectivene
  13. On the surface I would be immensely interested in this. But before anything like this should be attempted by a third party ED needs to get the SAMs that are part of DCS sorted first. We can't control anything with a central radar or command cabin. If that can't even be done forget integratng multiple SAMs. Being able to control the 2, 3, 8, 10, 11, and Patriot is a desperately needed capability for CA. They can so lay the groundwork for a inter-group communication system.
  14. Building on flare testing of the A-10C and AV-8B, I've conducted a study of the flare effectiveness of the F/A-18C. TL;DR: FLAR: 8 RPT: 1 INT: N/A provides the best protection, of the tested profiles, with the minimum required flares. For this study, I did a bit more testing to determine the effects of the three variables that can be programmed in the F/A-18C: Flares per cycle, cycle repeats, and cycle intervals. There were some interesting results, but overall they are consistent with the previous testing. You can find the results of the F/A-18C study here: F/A-18C Flare Effectivene
  • Create New...