Airbase Defence Mission?

Thanks but, I can't see anything about payload in Mission Planner. Any help on that?

Select your aircraft (should already be done) and on the right hand side there are a bunch of tabs in the middle of the panel. One is for editing waypoints, one is for mission payload, others are for default chaff/flare setups etc. the only time you don’t have access to this is on the instant missions (which I believe this isn’t one of those)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Select your aircraft (should already be done) and on the right hand side there are a bunch of tabs in the middle of the panel. One is for editing waypoints, one is for mission payload, others are for default chaff/flare setups etc. the only time you don’t have access to this is on the instant missions (which I believe this isn’t one of those)

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I understand the principle, thanks. Unfortunately, the player aircraft does not show in MP or ME in this mission.

I understand the principle, thanks. Unfortunately, the player aircraft does not show in MP or ME in this mission.

Nvmd then. I hadn’t actually looked on my computer to see this

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Good mission, but there are a couple of weird calls from AWACS as mentioned by Istari6 that have to be ignored. There is one about the target and one about the RTB heading (around 289 I think) which are confusing.

I will quote the calls exactly from the mission.

"Dodge 11, Wizard. Target is at a heading of 345." The target is flying a heading of 345. AWACs either report contact positions relative to bullseye or in BRA (bearing, range, altitude) format.

"Dodge 11, Kolhi. We confirm that the Hercules has been splashed. Return to base along a radial of 280 at 30,000 feet." This really cannot be misinterpreted. The mission is complete, you intercept the 280 radial and fly it towards base at 30,000. Also, your briefing graphics clearly depict your RTB routing. 280 radial inbound. Cross the 60 DME at FL300. 30 DME radial at 12K. Offset slightly south (right) and join the 268 radial inbound. Cross 8 DME at 2400.

As for the loadout question, it tells you in the briefing. Under the heading mission data. Or is you miss that just take a peek at the rearm/refuel ground crew option while they are hooking up the start cart (you have 3 150 gal DTs hung).

All of that said, of course some of the briefing information on these single player missions could be more detailed; likewise some of the radio commands during the missions. But I believe Belsimtek has provided enough information to get the job done, particularly since these missions rolled out right with the early access release of the airplane and were more meant as a showcase for a new module. Plus, I always try to keep in mind that, at least as far as I know, English is far from their first language as a company so I generally am grateful for whatever content in English we get. Frankly, I am much more concerned with the quality of their modules (which I have found to be excellent) over the quality of their missions. I'm not saying as customers we should just be happy with whatever they do, I'm just saying that this customer hopes they keep prioritizing module development and fixing existing bugs over mission content.

I realize I probably sound like a real jerk here, but I don't mean to, and certainly am not meaning this as an attack against anyone. After doing nothing but MP for a long time it was fun to look at some of the single missions again.

Thanks Tom. However, I have to disagree with some of what you have said.

I will quote the calls exactly from the mission.

 

"Dodge 11, Wizard. Target is at a heading of 345." The target is flying a heading of 345. AWACs either report contact positions relative to bullseye or in BRA (bearing, range, altitude) format.

Yes, and I have been previously advised that any calls from AWACS are relative to my position unless bull or bullseye is mentioned in the message.

"Dodge 11, Kolhi. We confirm that the Hercules has been splashed. Return to base along a radial of 280 at 30,000 feet." This really cannot be misinterpreted. The mission is complete, you intercept the 280 radial and fly it towards base at 30,000. Also, your briefing graphics clearly depict your RTB routing. 280 radial inbound. Cross the 60 DME at FL300. 30 DME radial at 12K. Offset slightly south (right) and join the 268 radial inbound. Cross 8 DME at 2400.

Fair enough, and thanks for that.

As for the loadout question, it tells you in the briefing. Under the heading mission data. Or is you miss that just take a peek at the rearm/refuel ground crew option while they are hooking up the start cart (you have 3 150 gal DTs hung).

Thanks for that. I missed it in the mission data section!

All of that said, of course some of the briefing information on these single player missions could be more detailed; likewise some of the radio commands during the missions. But I believe Belsimtek has provided enough information to get the job done, particularly since these missions rolled out right with the early access release of the airplane and were more meant as a showcase for a new module. Plus, I always try to keep in mind that, at least as far as I know, English is far from their first language as a company so I generally am grateful for whatever content in English we get. Frankly, I am much more concerned with the quality of their modules (which I have found to be excellent) over the quality of their missions. I'm not saying as customers we should just be happy with whatever they do, I'm just saying that this customer hopes they keep prioritizing module development and fixing existing bugs over mission content.

I disagree with this. There are 2 points here. Firstly, the fact that Belsimtek's first language is not English should make no difference to their ability to produce English content. You have to tailor your product to your market. Now, and I'm only guessing here, I would think that the vast majority of DCS users have English as their first langauge, or, certainly use English as their 'goto' language in games, literature etc. Belsimtek's web site is (almost) perfectly well written in English, so I don't really see that a few AWACS commands or content in missions should represent a major hurdle to them or any other developers. I am pretty sure that there will be English speaking advisors in the development of all DCS modules.

Secondly, you seem to suggest that it is an 'either/or' situation in the case of module quality vs mission quality. Why on earth should that be the case? One can, and should, have both. They are not mutually exclusive.

I realize I probably sound like a real jerk here, but I don't mean to, and certainly am not meaning this as an attack against anyone. After doing nothing but MP for a long time it was fun to look at some of the single missions again.

You don't sound like a jerk at all, you're just giving your opinion and that is what this forum is all about.

Bear in mind, however, and again I'm guessing, but from what I have read, the MP DCS users are in a huge minority. For single players who have bought a module, the quality of the training missions and manuals is critical, and the quality of the single missions is also very important in order to put what has been learnt into a fun context.

Everyone on this forum wants the same thing, i.e. to see DCS become an even better product than it already is. ED and Belsimtek do a fantastic job, but it doesn't mean that they can't improve a little.

I don't mean any of that in the context of this mission, as we are now nit-picking.

I appreciate you clearing up the fuel situation and the RTB message context!

I disagree with this. There are 2 points here. Firstly, the fact that Belsimtek's first language is not English should make no difference to their ability to produce English content. You have to tailor your product to your market. Now, and I'm only guessing here, I would think that the vast majority of DCS users have English as their first langauge, or, certainly use English as their 'goto' language in games, literature etc. Belsimtek's web site is (almost) perfectly well written in English, so I don't really see that a few AWACS commands or content in missions should represent a major hurdle to them or any other developers. I am pretty sure that there will be English speaking advisors in the development of all DCS modules.

Secondly, you seem to suggest that it is an 'either/or' situation in the case of module quality vs mission quality. Why on earth should that be the case? One can, and should, have both. They are not mutually exclusive.

I worked in the gaming industry for a few years (Acclaim Entertainment, QA Lead). Language localization done poorly is easy. Done well is hard.

Good voice acting in the first place is an actual commercial product that costs money. Bad voice acting can be worse then no voice acting at all. So if you're hiring talent in a non-English speaking area you have to find someone who can actually do voice work AND speaks the language. That's hard, really hard. What you usually get is someone who doesn't speak the language, and you try to fake it.

To a native speaker this is incredibly apparent, to everyone else it sounds great. Secondly the script needs to be written by a native speaker of the language you're trying to localize. Idioms, terminology, where sentences and phrases naturally pause, etc all are extremely difficult to do well without a native speaker. Computer or dictionary translations usually fail badly at being correct. Unless you have a native speaker (or a really fluent non-native, and I mean really fluent) on your dev team how do you review your scripting?

Language localization services are big money business in the gaming industry, and they need to be as it's not cheap to do anything close to a good job.

-Jenrick

I worked in the gaming industry for a few years (Acclaim Entertainment, QA Lead). Language localization done poorly is easy. Done well is hard.

 

Good voice acting in the first place is an actual commercial product that costs money. Bad voice acting can be worse then no voice acting at all. So if you're hiring talent in a non-English speaking area you have to find someone who can actually do voice work AND speaks the language. That's hard, really hard. What you usually get is someone who doesn't speak the language, and you try to fake it.

 

To a native speaker this is incredibly apparent, to everyone else it sounds great. Secondly the script needs to be written by a native speaker of the language you're trying to localize. Idioms, terminology, where sentences and phrases naturally pause, etc all are extremely difficult to do well without a native speaker. Computer or dictionary translations usually fail badly at being correct. Unless you have a native speaker (or a really fluent non-native, and I mean really fluent) on your dev team how do you review your scripting?

 

Language localization services are big money business in the gaming industry, and they need to be as it's not cheap to do anything close to a good job.

 

-Jenrick

Hi there. Thanks for that. I wouldn’t disagree with anything you have said. However, here we are talking about a few lines of written words and some fairly robotic lines from AWACS. Not really comparable.

Judging by Belimtek’s web site, the quality of their manuals and the English spoken in the Huey training missions, I don’t believe this is a barrier to them.

Yes, this ended up being one of my favorite missions because it really forced me to stretch with the skills I'd learned flying the F-5E.

I successfully completed this mission flying at night purely by instruments! Very satisfying, but I still feel we shouldn't have to flounder around in the dark in the pit. I mean the flashlight is next to useless. Also, the external lights near the runway are almost non-existent, and it is far too easy to slip onto grass. I guess this topic is being discussed in various other threads in the main 2.5 section, so no need to comment further.

And, when is the taxi lights/throttle F-5 bug going to be fixed? Surely, that can't be so hard! That would make all the difference.

"Dodge 11, Kolhi. We confirm that the Hercules has been splashed. Return to base along a radial of 280 at 30,000 feet." This really cannot be misinterpreted. The mission is complete, you intercept the 280 radial and fly it towards base at 30,000. Also, your briefing graphics clearly depict your RTB routing. 280 radial inbound. Cross the 60 DME at FL300. 30 DME radial at 12K. Offset slightly south (right) and join the 268 radial inbound. Cross 8 DME at 2400.

 

As for the loadout question, it tells you in the briefing. Under the heading mission data. Or is you miss that just take a peek at the rearm/refuel ground crew option while they are hooking up the start cart (you have 3 150 gal DTs hung).

I'm resurrecting this as I tried this mission again today, and a couple of things occurred to me.

Firstly, I use TACAN to get my intercept to return to Kolkhi, but I am just wondering, regarding the message above, how would a pilot find the 280 radial without it?

Also, regarding loadout, the info regarding fuel tanks only shows on the initial briefing BEFORE the mission loads. The briefing when sitting on the ramp doesn't. I wonder why they should be different.