Cold War 1947 - 1991

[Alpenwolf]

Server's back up!

 

Looks like the hotfix from yesterday hasn't fixed the problem yet.

[Decibel dB]

Since the last update I can't spot anything a mid to close range. I can see aircraft from miles as a little white dot then they disappear. Anyone else experience the same?

[Hiromachi]

Yup, this white dot I think is afterburner. You can see afterburners at extremely long ranges now.

[Alpenwolf]

Yup, this white dot I think is afterburner. You can see afterburners at extremely long ranges now.

 

No, it's not the afterburner. It's a bug.

[Alpenwolf]

A very interesting article sent to me by TAW_Tats!

There is no "shame" in being shot down by helicopters. They're basically (and as I always say about the Mistral mainly) deadly flying IR-SAM's/AAA's!

[Decibel dB]

 

No, it's not the afterburner. It's a bug.

 

The lack of vis at mid and close range also have suffered with the new lighting, hope they tweaked them. But apparently it is better to VR user

[Khangirey]

New DCS player, so far having a lot of fun on this server.

 

I had a few questions though, as the briefings are rather brief and a little bit cryptic. I've had no problem flying the F5 and just doing CAP missions, as it seems especially with human AWACS help it is just air-quake. I'm a little confused on other roles such as CAS. I understand the principle, but I'm still not used to how DCS runs vs. IL2. For example, in IL2 if I want to ground pound, I know the rough area of where the enemy is, what it is, and the exact conditions for "destroying" that specific unit/group.

 

Let's take the standard mission where both sides are fighting over a piece of land.

 

Is there an exact way to figure out the rough "frontline" so I can patrol that area and look for ground targets?

Are ground units able to report/request help?

Are ground units static or do they move? Further - are they AI controlled/commanded or does a human have to move them like in an RTS?

I read that human players can drop units off. Are these units static or can the players that dropped them off tell them where to go?

 

[Volator]

New DCS player, so far having a lot of fun on this server.

 

I had a few questions though, as the briefings are rather brief and a little bit cryptic. I've had no problem flying the F5 and just doing CAP missions, as it seems especially with human AWACS help it is just air-quake. I'm a little confused on other roles such as CAS. I understand the principle, but I'm still not used to how DCS runs vs. IL2. For example, in IL2 if I want to ground pound, I know the rough area of where the enemy is, what it is, and the exact conditions for "destroying" that specific unit/group.

 

 

Briefing in DCS in general is pretty bad. The whole system needs a complete overhaul, but it seems this point doesn't have any priority at ED's, so unfortunately this isn't going to improve anytime soon.

 

You are right, the written briefings could be a little more specific in certain aspects in order to understand what's going on. Sometimes the briefing includes a .bmp that shows a small picture of the mission designer map with the placed ground units to give you a very rough understanding of what's going on, but it's way too small to really work and pre-plan your mission with it.

 

 

Is there an exact way to figure out the rough "frontline" so I can patrol that area and look for ground targets?

No exact way. AFAIK DCS mission editor doesn't allow graphics or written information be included in the in-game map. Mission designers would have to adapt a .bmp of the mission map with an external program, but players would also have to use them externally, as DCS doesn't provide a way to access such a map (maybe via kneeboard, but that's also very limited AFAIK). There is of course the F-10 map, but basically the options are just "See all units (at their exact location)", which is unrealistic, or "See nothing".

 

Are ground units able to report/request help?

Not by default. Some mission designers use scripts with text our audio messages once a specific ground unit is under attack, but that's also just a very limited way of dealing with the issue.

 

 

Are ground units static or do they move? Further - are they AI controlled/commanded or does a human have to move them like in an RTS?

Depends on the mission designer. First of all, you need "Combined Arms" to command ground units. Here on the CWS, most units are movable and can be driven by players or be commanded via AI. A ground commander (there are specific player slots for these) would have to tell most ground units where to move via the F-10 map. Sometimes there are ground units that move automatically as designed by the mission designer.

 

I read that human players can drop units off. Are these units static or can the players that dropped them off tell them where to go?

Yes, helicopter pilots can transport ground units and put up air defenses. They are usually movable, and once they are dropped, a ground commander can use them.

 

All in all there is a lot do be desired in this field of DCS, but even now it's still a lot of fun to dig into the ground war aspect.

[rossmum]

The white dot is the impostor. Basically when the aircraft gets far enough away, the visual model derenders and is replaced by that dot (hence 'impostor'). This is why, if you have a good monitor of non-insane size and run, say, 1080p, you can spot aircraft against the sky from over 50km away (which is just insane). Compare this to other sims, where the LOD models get chunkier in silhouette in order to account for worse visual acuity on a screen than with a human eye. The impostor also applies to ground units, which means you can spot things like EWRs from insane distances. The only 'weakness' here is that as you get close, the impostor is replaced by the visual model and thus becomes actually difficult to spot again.

 

Seems ED managed to switch the moonlight glint impostor with the old daylight one, or something. Really they just need to abandon the entire system and use what literally every other combat sim on the market does, but I doubt it'll happen. It's a fair amount of work and in a game where the majority of the playerbase are (allegedly) playing singleplayer exclusively, it doesn't matter if "BVR" doesn't actually exist in any true sense.

 

As for SAMs... this is the problem you run into. The Soviets invested a lot of time and money into highly mobile, closely integrated air defence systems while NATO (and particularly the US) essentially twiddled their thumbs. Even fixed-position systems like the S-75 and S-125 could be packed up and moved quite quickly, and most of the mobile systems were capable of independent operation. Several were amphibious. Almost all systems had some redundant method of target tracking in case of heavy ECM or other problems. Meanwhle, the Hawk is... kinda gash, let's be honest, and this is even comparing to how poorly DCS models missile tracking in general (if the S-75 behaved realistically, blue players would have a very rude awakening).

 

Blue's main mid-range cover in the server is the Hawk. It's a kinda-sorta-not-really mobile system made of a bunch of rental trailers with Jimmy's electronics class homework taped to them and requires a command post and two or three different radars to work. This is why it takes so many trips to set one up - good luck engaging a target with no height-finding radar, or with all your radars but no command post. Now compare this to red's situation: we have the Kub. The Kub is a... divisional (? I always forget) level SAM to cover army units on the march. The search and track radars are condensed into a single vehicle. The whole thing is meant to move with the tanks and set up and fire on short notice. It only takes 2 trips because there are only two major elements in DCS, the launchers and the radar. We're already missing a significant number of support assets for SAMs (on the topic of red SAMs alone, things like command posts, IFF, the datalink back to the local PVO command structure, etc.) and so this only exacerbates things. My suggestion would be to substitute the Kub out for the S-125, but this means more missiles per battery, more range (by something on the order of 10km) and better ceiling (by almost double, depending on variant). This might already be too much compared to the caveman tech blue have to rely on, but depending how CTLD works things out it might at least require as many parts as the Hawk, if not one or two more (should be EWR, FCR, height finder, launchers, command truck). This is one of those 'asymmetrical balance' moments I guess. If CTLD allows less trips to place a Hawk then that's a start, but from my own experience at least, I am a lot more scared of Kub sites than Hawk sites, to say nothing of the fact that if DCS did EW worth a damn, the MiG-21's SPS-141 should completely jam out the Hawk's FCR anyway.

 

Unfortunately I couldn't play very long today because Syria was attempting to murder my PC, but it was a fun run. The insane pace of CAP sorties on Behind Enemy Lines is incredibly fun, and it makes for great practice landing the F-5 since your flights sometimes only last a minute before both missiles are gone and you need to take the opportunity to rearm before the next wave comes. I swear, though, some of you blues really need to chill out with those Sidewinders! So many are wasted by waiting too long and firing too close, or not uncaging and giving the missile a little help with a leading shot.

 

Worth note as well that the much-maligned F-5 radar is actually the eyes of God on this server, as with a little practice you can spot and pick out contacts even in ground clutter and have an almost foolproof 10nm (!) auto-acq close combat mode. I wouldn't worry about "giving away your position", you guys should see the excuse for an RWR we have to work with :lol:

[Alpenwolf]

New DCS player, so far having a lot of fun on this server.

 

I had a few questions though, as the briefings are rather brief and a little bit cryptic...

Welcome to DSC!

 

The issue I have with the briefings is that most players don't even bother to read them to start with. Knowing and seeing that every time I'm online pushed me to try and figure out something.

I started providing very short briefings so players are not startled by long texts and various briefing images. The briefing images' size is very small as pointed out by Ike but that's on ED. I noticed that players still post questions about this and that in the chat window despite me including information in the briefing for those specific FAQ's. And if they notice that I'm online they post even more questions.

Another thing is having briefing messages appearing on the player's screen the second he jumps into the cockpit of any aircraft. And it stays there for about 2 minutes to tell him briefly about what's going on. Guess what! I still receive the same questions when the answer is right in front of their eyes included in that message on their screen.

In the old missions (e.g. Catch Me If You Can, Phone Booth, Supervision, Ossetia, etc.) I even started using loads of triggers and flags to always provide players with brief messages updating them on the situation. And still the same good old problem: Most players are loathe to read at all. So I kind of slept on that as of late and haven't paid enough attention to it any more simply because the efforts invested seemed pointless.

 

Shame... And it's a good point you're raising.

[rossmum]

Blue have SEAD of sorts, more than we do in missions without the 25T (Harrier with Sidearm). In fact, the past few times I've been on the server, I've noticed pairs of Harriers very effectively clearing Kub sites using them. Obviously the 25T is capable of killing SAMs from further out, though.

[Alpenwolf]

Yes, LoneS, you're right. And as to that I'm following my own agenda on how to balance things using what's available while breaking a rule or two implementing modules, units, you name it.

 

While some speculate and talk about date of development vs date of entering series production vs date of maiden flight vs date of entering service, etc. I have to go somewhere between all that. I've been following the same idea since day one, although it doesn't seem justifiable to some of you. And I can't keep on trying to explain what's slightly based on flexibility in that regard, because... it's flexible and always adapting to ED's added changes to the game. There's no strict protocol here that I follow. Therefore, you do yourselves a favour in not always trying to question the logic behind adding that unit and throwing out that one or bringing back that module while insisting on that one, etc. Don't get me wrong, please. Ideas and critics are something I've always welcomed and expressed gratitude for and always will. Discussing the essence of the missions is something I'm not willing to compromise. Why? Because that'd strap me to a hamster wheel of endless reworking and rescripting of each and every mission every time there's a question raised regarding any module or ground unit. Because at the end of the day I have to do it in a way that is "playable" for the CW pilots which is the essence of us being part of DCS in the first place. So there's that historical accuracy aspect of it, the limitations of the available modules and units aspect and most notably the FUN part of it. Combining all three among other possible aspects is the challenge I face in designing every mission. Not easy, folks. That's why I keep certain things inviolable.

 

Hope that makes sense and erases some questions.

 

Yes, rossmum, the Harrier has some SEAD capabilities, but it's heavily restricted in numbers and only available in a few missions. I'm not planning on keeping it so I can't add units and change missions to adapt to a module that's eventually going to leave the server. So I keep it limited for those who want to perform CAS or strike missions flying it in specific scenarios where it fits well.

[Volator]

Some SAM in DCS test results:

 

Roland ADS (one unit or two with EWR)

Detection range (with Roland EWR) 18,9nm, 35km

Detection range (only Roland ADS) 6,3nm, 11,7km

Engagement range 4,2NM, 7,8km

 

AI MiG-21 went supersonic and evaded two fired missiles easily, flying straight and level, low.

 

Roland has two missiles ready only and needs to reload very soon.

 

Rapier (three units)

Detection range 16,2nm, 30km

Engagement range 3,6nm, 6,7km

 

AI MiG-21 went supersonic and evaded four fired missiles easily, flight straight and level, low.

AI Su-25 evaded four fired missiles going low and straight and level.

 

Rapier might not be a good choice due to low range and the need for three units to make the site operational.

 

SA-15 (one unit)

Detection range 13,3nm, 24,6km

Engagement range 6,45nm, 12km

 

AI F-5E evaded two missiles by chaffing and manoeuvering, was hit by third and fourth missile.

 

SA-8 (one unit)

Detection range 16,3nm, 30km

Engagement range 5,5nm, 10km

 

AI F-5E evaded two missiles by chaffing and manoeuvering, was hit by third and fourth missile.

 

 

Another thought: The last two days' missions (Two Towns and Behind enemy lines) showed that the Su-25T is nearly (not completely, but pretty much) invulnerable to Stinger SAMs with their DIRCM and tons of flares. Doing some CA work I watched in awe as they killed my tanks with Vikhrs, up to three in one approach and multiple Stingers flew by without any effect. Maybe another point to include / allow helicopters to deploy Roland SAMs. I mean, since you put in SA-15 because Blue has some good strikers, why not add some Rolands, because after all it looks like Red has two very good CAS aircraft.

[Volator]

@Alpenwolf

How do you feel about putting a line into the briefing for players who want to do pure GCI, please take the JTAC slots and leave the Commander slots for people working on the ground war?

[Khangirey]

@Pilot Ike

Thanks for the clarification, that makes sense. I think the biggest tragedy is the inability to annotate the map, it really does limit things. I wonder if it is possible for a live update via kneeboard. I'm not talking about a picture of a map, but simple text updates with grid/description

 

 

@Alpenwolf

I feel your frustration. I wonder if it is possible to edit the briefings with a one size fits all copy/paste for new players? This short piece could have things that just mention mechanics (Which players can look up themselves if so inclined). Even as someone who has done their homework, I would have never been able to enjoy this server to its potential if I didn't have my hand-held by veteran players. Perhaps that's the biggest barrier to entry for new pilots trying to play cold war? Arguably, actually learning how to fly and fight in the F5 was an easier time than trying to figure out how the jet meshes in with the rest of the world/server.

 

As a more bold suggestion - I don't know if you're familiar with the server combat-box in Il2. They have an early GCI/Headquarters system which uses SRS and from what I've been able to gather, server logs. Once a criteria is met, there's a text to speech message over SRS (With accents for that nation) which says things such as "Furball detected at grid xyz, all available fighters support", or "Our FockerWulf is beginning an attack run on 84th Infantry at grid XYZ". It also gives snarky remarks if you botch your takeoff/landing.

 

I wonder if it would be possible to tie that in with your aforementioned triggers and waypoints - a simple text to speech which plays when certain mission parameters are met.

[Alpenwolf]

@Pilot Ike ke

Thanks for checking out the SAM units. I did the same and had various results flying different types of aircraft.

 

Adding a line wont help much. Because as one of the server rules dictate one MUST be on SRS while using the cmdr/JTAC slot. However, sometimes some players are not on SRS. Why? Because they didn't just skip reading the server rules but in fact anything else all together. Adding yet another line isn't going to change anything.

 

Just for your information in case you have missed that, Mi-8's are unable to deploy Tors. They're there from the beginning and if destroyed they're gone. And it's mostly 1 Tor only and mostly at the Red FARP to counter Viggens flying at light speeds. So if it wasn't for the frequent strikes on Red FARP's by nigh unstoppable Viggens you wouldn't have seen the Tors in the first place. Not saying that striking FARP's isn't allowed though. But if it's allowed and Red was struggling with stopping those Viggens I had to react.

 

 

@Khangirey

I've never played IL2 but I understand the concept you're talking about which is exactly what I'm working on with some help from 2 good friends who are more familiar with scripting than I am. That's your cue: SCRIPTING!

The messages appearing on your screen and updating players or telling them what should be done requires one solid .lua file or whatever type of scripting. That's the only way. And it's a long way. Can't tell how long until it's ready. And I've noticed the necessity of that ever since more and more newcomers have started flying on the server. Those who've been around here for quite some time have more experience and a deeper understanding to the missions so I never felt the need to "explain" things in greater detail.

 

On the other hand however, I did have some missions in the past with great details and lots of briefing images. The result was that most players don't even care about reading the briefing in the first place so they always ended up firing questions at me the second I showed up online. And that was the actual reason for me to stop paying so much attention to the details in the briefings. And I guarantee you that most players don't read anything still. How do I know that? Because of the FAQ's I always get about general things that are actually included in the short briefings that might encourage players to read them (or so I hoped)... but they don't. Just yesterday some player was asking me about the EWR's frequency when that's included in the briefing and always the same in al missions.

[Volator]

[uSER=116560]

 

Just for your information in case you have missed that, Mi-8's are unable to deploy Tors. They're there from the beginning and if destroyed they're gone. And it's mostly 1 Tor only and mostly at the Red FARP to counter Viggens flying at light speeds. So if it wasn't for the frequent strikes on Red FARP's by nigh unstoppable Viggens you wouldn't have seen the Tors in the first place. Not saying that striking FARP's isn't allowed though. But if it's allowed and Red was struggling with stopping those Viggens I had to react.

 

Ok, I understand your point. Think about exchanging the SA-15 with an SA-8 though, and consider making the SA-8/SA-15 not playable and stationary so that it solely functions as a FARP protection asset and doesn't show up at the front line like it happened two nights ago at "Behind enemy lines" (at Minakh airbase) where I had to chase it down with my Leclerc tanks. I think Blue still should at least have a chance to kill it if they really wanted to attack the FARP, and this would require a coordinated team effort then, what's not to like about this? :smilewink:

 

 

[Foka1]

I personally think that testing SAMs on AI is very limited if you want to apply results somehow to PvP...

[Decibel dB]

I swear, though, some of you blues really need to chill out with those Sidewinders! So many are wasted by waiting too long and firing too close, or not uncaging and giving the missile a little help with a leading shot.

 

My feeling is that uncaging the 9P doesn't make a difference anymore. Not sure why but I can't discern any difference cage of not. Perhaps I do it wrong

o7

 

 

[Alpenwolf]

The SA-15 at Minakh is there from the beginning - "mostly to protect FARP's", that's what I said , hinting at operation Behind Enemy Lines in particular. Doesn't mean FARP's only.

The inferior and outnumbered T-55's rely on CAS in their battle against the more advanced Leclerc tanks among other ground units. They're basically helpless, although they score a kill here or there.

Minakh is a bit cut off, hence the Tor. Otherwise CAS aircraft or Ka-50's are easily slaughtered and they are to be honest, despite the Tor. Minakh is always captured by Blue and even without A-10's or Viggens providing CAS because that's simply not really needed with all the Blue ground units you have there.

At Hatay however, Red has more tanks and you see Blue strikers operating there more frequently. Very sensible. It's a whoever provides better CAS and utilises his ground units best scenario so to speak. And so far Red won the mission once only, exactly 1 month ago - 13.10.2020.

 

I hardly see any "Tor-impact" on the mission.

 

In operation Search & Destroy which covers quite a large scale of the southern parts of Iran there is 1 single Tor only. It's an AI Tor and stationary at the FARP. No big deal, unless you want to strike the FARP. Well, in that case it shouldn't be easy because the advantage you get from destroying the or a FARP is quite huge. And it's mostly the Viggens doing it, hence... again... the Tor.

I don't blame the Viggens but I'd rather see them focusing on the objective. The maximum damage you can to a FARP is destroying all buildings and units to render helicopters unable to rearm or refuel. Not really worth it to just take away the Mi-8's door gunners. And that's a lot of effort and probably some lost Viggens to just take away the Ka-50's Vikhrs.

It's not the objective, although it's fun to do for some. I get it.

 

Prince of Persia: Same story. Covers a large part of the peninsula and 1 AI Tor only at the Red FARP.

 

The Tors in operation Street Fight are now all stationary AI units and far away from the battlefield.

 

That's it... No further Tors anywhere else. Operation Sneaky Bastards is offline.

 

Whether SA-8 or -15 it wont really change anything. You wont approach the Red FARP as a Viggen pilot somehow differently because now it's SA-8 and not -15 any more. The -15 is more suitable due to the slightly longer range which is needed againt Viggens flying at 1700 kph or even more as I see that quite often while doing GCI. And it's worth mentioning that the missiles don't always hit the Viggens.

 

There's that to it. I believe we covered the subject very well and lots of points were mentioned and even tests that you and I and maybe others ran.

[Alpenwolf]

Server News:

 

Rewriting the briefing of every mission and possibly adding more briefing images has started today.

This should help avoiding confusion and newcomers understand their objectives better.

This might take a while so bear with me, please.

[Alpenwolf]

F-14A release

by Heatblur Simulations.

[Witcher]

Hi from a new DCS player :-) I really enjoy the server and its community!

 

+1 To the idea to consider portable TACAN stations. I tend to struggle with navigation especially on Caucasus, where the ADF stations use kHz frequencies, and are not usable F-5 Tiger which I fly the most.

 

F-14A release

by Heatblur Simulations.

 

Awesome!

 

 

[Alpenwolf]

Hi from a new DCS player :-) I really enjoy the server and its community!

 

+1 To the idea to consider portable TACAN stations. I tend to struggle with navigation especially on Caucasus, where the ADF stations use kHz frequencies, and are not usable F-5 Tiger which I fly the most.

 

 

 

Awesome!

 

 

Welcome to the server!

[Alpenwolf]

Server News:

 

After today's 14th server's crash since the latest update I'll have to put the server offline for a while (not sure for how long).

I can't host like this. Especially with the effort players pour into their gameplay trying to complete the objectives to then have the server crash every 10-20 hours. On the other hand hosting the server costs money so I can only hope ED fixes this issue ASAP.