Jump to content


ED Beta Testers
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Ironwulf

  1. Hopefully I dont cop it for putting multiple issues in the one post, but they are all related to the same thing, an AI Pilot's AI gunners. Please see attached MIZ and TRK. The huey should orbit back and forth. The Green helo is set to free fire. It engages the trucks (terribly I might add) - but not the four watchtowers shooting at it! After I while I blow the trucks up. The other trucks with smoke next to them are set invisible as I was testing to see if an issue where ai door gunners for player flown aircraft would engage targets that were set to AI invisible - seems that's been fixed. Once the trucks are blown up, it then targets the helipad. Again, not the watchtowers that are shooting at it. This presents a problem because you cannot set a helipad invisible to AI... so no matter what, it will attempt to shoot it up and it cannot die (to gunfire at least). In fact it seems to preference the farp over any fortification type target (armed house, watchtower, etc) Now where this gets even better is the other AI helo in the mission, the red flag one. It is set ROE return fire. It also does not return fire on the watchtowers, but even more amazingly, it still shoots at the farp - which is not shooting at it! Lastly I put in a player slot. If you fly it yourself, your AI gunners correctly target the watchtowers that are shooting at you on return fire and not the trucks. They also do not target the helipad, even when on freefire. Lastly, the miniguns on the AI helos sound like M60s (which also dont sound like real M60s IMO), they fire stupidly short bursts and despite being set to the same accuracy level as the AI gunners in a player helo, their aim is woeful. Please fix aigunners.trk farp issue.miz
  2. See attached - not sure if being at night makes a difference.
  3. When a (non 3rd party scripted) FAC/JTAC is operating against multiple groups, you have to assign multiple FAC tasks, however it would seem you need the units being tasked by the FAC to check out of each one (at which time it tells you to depart - "no further taskings available you may depart") before getting the next. I am aware there is an enroute task of 'FAC' which allows it to decide targets, but it doesnt let mission creators assign priority. It would be good to have 'engage groups' You then have a priority sorted list of groups which the JTAC will work through in order. If one group cannot be seen, it moves on to the next but when that target is destroyed it rechecks to see if any higher priority targets have become visible again.
  4. If its correct as is, it should not pop up - 'loft'. It is a range/position unknown mode, therefore it has no idea whether a popup is even necessary... it could be 10 miles away, or it could be 100 miles away.
  5. Hi I noticed the HARM now pops up (again) when fired TOO. This would appear to be incorrect - although the previous profile was also somewhat wrong too in that it would basically dive before levelling out on the target. IT should fly basically straight out and then on a convex curve towards the target. Here's an article on it from a reputable source - its about half way down, just search for 'TOO' Note in particular it says its a direct attack mode, so the missile should once the first stage has fired, tip downwards and attempt to directly fly at the source, and this is shown in the diagram in the article. https://www.ausairpower.net/API-AGM-88-HARM.html PS: TAS (search for "TAS" towards the end of the article) would be great - please implement :) Do you need a track for this? it seems pretty obvious and repeatable...
  6. Confirmed the github version works fine. Sorry for the trouble. When it got overwritten by the update, I must've grabbed the wrong version when seeking to reinstall it.
  7. I'll check it out. Its possible that i downloaded the wrong version, but it worked before the update, just not after.
  8. Never mind, solved my own problem... this mod caused the issue https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/1970350/ I did a repair to remove the mod, and it is working again. I would say I liked the mod, it'd be great if it could be built into ME, then we might not have this issue.
  9. Any change to either will reset the time to 1200 1 July 1900 Youtube video of it here Yes I had the A-4 module loaded... in case that is noticed, but the same issue happens without it too.
  10. Thanks, whilst a mod is great, it should be natively supported.
  11. Pretty much self explanatory. Should be able to deploy a JTAC infantry unit that is less conspicuous than a vehicle - it should have some fighting capability but can lase and use radios. Perhaps a slower movement rate due to the gear being dragged around.
  12. By low level I mean say 1000-5000 AGL. Trashed probably 10 missiles this way. Will upload a track file within the next 24 hours
  13. I have to agree... why re-invent the wheel. Pay the man for his great work, and have your devs doing more important stuff!
  14. "RUNWAY DEAD" condition with all or individual runways (when there are more than one) NEUTRAL COALITION (which we all know is already in there, just not working very well) - preferably more than one, which would be handy in forthcoming Syria map especially. ABILITY TO CHANGE COALITION (currently a mod and can only be done in ME not during the mission) and/or set conditions/actions that allow countries to join coalitions ABILITY TO QUERY and/or CHANGE WEIGHT OF HELO - currently SP, make MP please... even if via lua function only BETTER DYNAMIC WEATHER EDITOR and/or more example weather systems and/or better documentation. Ability to remove individual units from groups other than the very last unit (this may be possible, but I have no idea how to do it) More follow options: * helos following ships * ship groups following other ships etc * vehicle groups follow other vehicle groups * command > set waypoint for ships and vehicles * fix AI ESCORT task so it does it in both MP or SP, or rename it or more clearly document it if it can only be SP. * up to date documentation (period) * ability to copy particular groups from one mission file to another without making permanent templates * better in-game template manager - delete templates, copy templates to other countries. * a 'copy waypoints from group' option which takes waypoints 1 and above from the selected group and copies them to the current unit * copy radio freqs from group - similar * better resource management - set an initial stock level, and the target stock level * alphanumeric aliases for flags. they can stay numbers but allow us to set a word alias it makes it so much easier to remember what they are doing. where a word alias is set display that in the condition/action. In addition or as an alternative a popup window with all the current flags mentioned in all conditions and the ability to put a name to them as a quick reference * ground start WW2 aircraft anywhere on flat ground * fix ground unit affiliations - Iran is missing a lot of units that are available but not allocated to them, for example. * polygon trigger zones * missile NOT in zone More static objects fences, walls, bollards, etc.
  15. +1 I'd like to add that I'd settle for PG airport ATCs that actually reported the correct airport - Sharjah is reported as Novorossyisk for example. But I agree accented voices (male AND female) wouldn't hurt... remembering however often times USAF etc will bring their own ATC guys to control their traffic.... but civilian airports wont have them, of course. Same for pilot voices. I think ED could have a good opportunity here to reach out to the community and ask for submissions from DCS pilots from the many countries out there. Give them a script and ask them to send in their submissions, pick the top 10 from each country. One of the things I liked about Falcon is not only could you change your profile pic - as you can on DCS - but also select from a wide variety of pilot voices.
  16. So I checked out and Qatar's TACAN checks out as OK. They (Al Minhad and Al Udied) both run 99X... I guess there is enough distance in there to not cause issues IRL - I would assume TACAN locks on to the strongest source... perhaps DCS doesn't model transmission power and that's where it runs into issues?
  17. And on the hornet there's no high drag Mk-83 variant.
  18. I already said I'd pay for a F/A-18D "night attack" or "all weather" so long as it was multi-crew ;) And I'd actually prefer to not have a 'jester' equivalent. I'd rather not fly it if I didnt have a human back-seater, if one were essential.
  19. Every view that hides units from players in multiplayer (my aircraft, map only etc) gives a fog of war style view to jtac and tac commander Why was this excluded from allies only? It basically defeats the purpose of having a tac commander or jtac in missions where this setting is enabled. Can you please fix this view?
  20. Another function would be some sort of threat reaction... some ships have to turn into incoming missiles to present the most number of defences - Most ships are defenceless against missiles front on, for example (and lets not forget the missing chaff dispensing, and I am almost certain ECM jamming is not modelled either).
  21. AI units like the Stennis, Perry, and Ticonderoga do not even attempt to defend against incoming Chinese anti-ship missiles. Sure, they're sea-skimmers but equally sure the phalanx would at least make an attempt. Same units have no problems -or at least engage- with Silkworm, or Russian anti-ship missiles. Having trouble uploading a track but will do so within the next 24 hours.
  22. @rudel_chw - heatblur did the F-14B You are showing the F-14A, which has always been in the mission editor as an AI aircraft. Heatblur have said they will do a F-14A eventually, and specifically an Iranian one, but it is not yet out.
  23. I note there's an SU-25 in your pics but cannot find the download... do you have a link?
  24. Sure, I take those into account. They would have also been required for the Chinese SAM system
  • Create New...