Jump to content

Operation Snowfox - Persian Gulf PvE Playground


Surrexen
 Share

Recommended Posts

Surrexen,

 

tl:dr - the explosion command in the "Snowfox Persistent World.lua" script is not sufficient enough to kill Shelter Structures.

 

I think this is only an issue with the three static objects that are listed as Shelters under the mission editor's Structures category:

"Bandar Lengeh - Boat Bunker"

"Bandar Abbas - Missile Bunker 1"

"Bandar Abbas - Missile Bunker 2"

 

I see your comment in the Persistent lua,"not exact science :/" - lol. It really isn't!

 

So I tested what explosion value needs to be set in the "Snowfox Persistent World.lua" script. For the boat bunker, a value of 3000 destroyed it but this left the two missile bunkers alive. I found that I had to set the explosion value to at least 3200 to get the missile bunkers to also be destroyed.

 

I can understand not wanting to increase the explosion for fear of taking out units nearby, so I wondered if a double explosion on the Shelters would work. I edited your lua script by adding "coord:Explosion(1700)" right after the original explosion command:

 

for i = 1, StaticIntermentTableLength do
	local SnowfoxStatic = STATIC:FindByName(SnowfoxStaticInterment[i])
	local coord = SnowfoxStatic:GetCoordinate()
	coord:Explosion(1500) --works for Workshop size statics, may hit other things, not exact science :/
	coord:Explosion(1700) --added by Super Wabbit to destroy missile bunkers
	coord:BigSmokeMedium(0.25)				
	SEFDeletedStaticCount = SEFDeletedStaticCount + 1
end

 

BTW: "Abu Musa - Bunker 1" and "Abu Musa - Bunker 2", which are actually listed as "Bunker 1" in the mission editor's Structures list, are taken out by the original explosion from the Persistent lua. Also, I don't see this as an issue with the other static objects, like the processing plants, comms towers, hangars, etc. I'm assuming that DCS has some type of health/hit value for static objects and that Shelters have a larger value as they seem to require larger bombs to destroy compared to other static objects.

 

Just curious, was this similar to the issue with the outpost static object bug you noted in the past?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surrexen,

 

tl:dr - the explosion command in the "Snowfox Persistent World.lua" script is not sufficient enough to kill Shelter Structures.

 

I think this is only an issue with the three static objects that are listed as Shelters under the mission editor's Structures category:

"Bandar Lengeh - Boat Bunker"

"Bandar Abbas - Missile Bunker 1"

"Bandar Abbas - Missile Bunker 2"

 

I see your comment in the Persistent lua,"not exact science :/" - lol. It really isn't!

 

So I tested what explosion value needs to be set in the "Snowfox Persistent World.lua" script. For the boat bunker, a value of 3000 destroyed it but this left the two missile bunkers alive. I found that I had to set the explosion value to at least 3200 to get the missile bunkers to also be destroyed.

 

I can understand not wanting to increase the explosion for fear of taking out units nearby, so I wondered if a double explosion on the Shelters would work. I edited your lua script by adding "coord:Explosion(1700)" right after the original explosion command:

 

for i = 1, StaticIntermentTableLength do
	local SnowfoxStatic = STATIC:FindByName(SnowfoxStaticInterment[i])
	local coord = SnowfoxStatic:GetCoordinate()
	coord:Explosion(1500) --works for Workshop size statics, may hit other things, not exact science :/
	coord:Explosion(1700) --added by Super Wabbit to destroy missile bunkers
	coord:BigSmokeMedium(0.25)				
	SEFDeletedStaticCount = SEFDeletedStaticCount + 1
end

 

BTW: "Abu Musa - Bunker 1" and "Abu Musa - Bunker 2", which are actually listed as "Bunker 1" in the mission editor's Structures list, are taken out by the original explosion from the Persistent lua. Also, I don't see this as an issue with the other static objects, like the processing plants, comms towers, hangars, etc. I'm assuming that DCS has some type of health/hit value for static objects and that Shelters have a larger value as they seem to require larger bombs to destroy compared to other static objects.

 

Just curious, was this similar to the issue with the outpost static object bug you noted in the past?

 

The 'not exact science' comment is from Pikey as the basis for this was from his simple group saving script. Statics are basically evil. That's the short version. The outpost bug was being caused by a problem in the mission status watcher script thing, were looking for the object could potentially return nil ... it was the same bug that was in in the validation routine that checks if a target is dead or not before assigning it as a mission or not.

 

And yes, the biggest problem with having to explode the statics is the blast kills things near it. This is collateral damage, and the price we pay for persistent statics lol. I'm about to go on holiday with the family, when I get back from that I'll see If I can work something out for this.

 

Thanks for letting me know, tis' a good catch :thumbup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So it turn's out I 'can' just remove the static objects without having to explode them. This would mean we don't cause collateral damage after all, but we won't have the dead looking object on the ground with the smoke, which is of course good fun. So like everything else I've had to build into this thing, it's a compromise. The other option would be to do something similar to what you suggested, but perhaps get a bit more scientific about it and pull the life values out of the objects and try to calculate how many smaller explosions it would take to blow up a given thing and do it that way (so we aren't guessing how much to blast it by). Or another method is just remove the static object without exploding it, and put the smoke down where it was without having the damaged building left behind. That may look a little strange though.

 

I'm leaning towards option 1 as it's quick, clean and will stop the problem of blowing things up unnecessarily around statics and not suck up resources by not putting smoke everywhere. Let me know what you would prefer.

 

 

for i = 1, StaticIntermentTableLength do
	local SnowfoxStatic = STATIC:FindByName(SnowfoxStaticInterment[i])
	local coord = SnowfoxStatic:GetCoordinate()
	coord:Explosion(1500) --works for Workshop size statics, may hit other things, not exact science :/
	coord:Explosion(1700) --added by Super Wabbit to destroy missile bunkers
	coord:BigSmokeMedium(0.25)				
	SEFDeletedStaticCount = SEFDeletedStaticCount + 1
end

 

would just end up being

 

for i = 1, StaticIntermentTableLength do
	StaticObject.getByName(SnowfoxStaticInterment[i]):destroy()		
	SEFDeletedStaticCount = SEFDeletedStaticCount + 1
end

 

for example.


Edited by Surrexen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

here's a quick question. does destroying a building that could be part of a mission, but not the current one wreck anything? or does that mission just get removed from the pool? I am realizing i am probably blowing up a lot of buildings that are for missions. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So it turn's out I 'can' just remove the static objects without having to explode them. This would mean we don't cause collateral damage after all, but we won't have the dead looking object on the ground with the smoke, which is of course good fun. So like everything else I've had to build into this thing, it's a compromise. The other option would be to do something similar to what you suggested, but perhaps get a bit more scientific about it and pull the life values out of the objects and try to calculate how many smaller explosions it would take to blow up a given thing and do it that way (so we aren't guessing how much to blast it by). Or another method is just remove the static object without exploding it, and put the smoke down where it was without having the damaged building left behind. That may look a little strange though.

 

I'm leaning towards option 1 as it's quick, clean and will stop the problem of blowing things up unnecessarily around statics and not suck up resources by not putting smoke everywhere. Let me know what you would prefer.

 

 

for i = 1, StaticIntermentTableLength do
	local SnowfoxStatic = STATIC:FindByName(SnowfoxStaticInterment[i])
	local coord = SnowfoxStatic:GetCoordinate()
	coord:Explosion(1500) --works for Workshop size statics, may hit other things, not exact science :/
	coord:Explosion(1700) --added by Super Wabbit to destroy missile bunkers
	coord:BigSmokeMedium(0.25)				
	SEFDeletedStaticCount = SEFDeletedStaticCount + 1
end

 

would just end up being

 

for i = 1, StaticIntermentTableLength do
	StaticObject.getByName(SnowfoxStaticInterment[i]):destroy()		
	SEFDeletedStaticCount = SEFDeletedStaticCount + 1
end

 

for example.

 

I fly in VR and anything that helps performance is welcomed but I honestly don't know that removing the destroyed static objects would noticeably increase performance. But also in VR, we wouldn't really care if we saw the smoke of destroyed static objects.

 

So....

 

Option 1, while not as visually interesting, would be far easier to implement and maintain than doing all the testing to verify how many little explosions it takes to destroy a static object. Especially considering the same type of static object took differing amounts of damage based on terrain. Having to test each and every static object. We've completed Clear Field and Snow Fox and through the many hours of playing this mission, the most common problem has been an issue with static targets.

 

Thanks again for all the hard work and enjoy your holiday!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

here's a quick question. does destroying a building that could be part of a mission, but not the current one wreck anything? or does that mission just get removed from the pool? I am realizing i am probably blowing up a lot of buildings that are for missions. :D

 

It should not. In fact I did this just that last night and it worked just fine. It's my understanding that after a mission target is destroyed it'll pick another random target from a list of unfinished targets - ie targets that are still alive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It should not. In fact I did this just that last night and it worked just fine. It's my understanding that after a mission target is destroyed it'll pick another random target from a list of unfinished targets - ie targets that are still alive.

 

Yeah you can blow things up whether they are the current mission or not. The script will figure out that the group or building has been destroyed already when it tries to select that mission, and will just mark it as completed already and go select another one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Surrexen,

 

 

solid work, I love that mission. Any chance to maybe make the airfields capturable? I would love to play this in rather a "continuous capture" way than single missions. you see any possibility to do that kind of setup too? best regards

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Surrexen,

 

 

solid work, I love that mission. Any chance to maybe make the airfields capturable? I would love to play this in rather a "continuous capture" way than single missions. you see any possibility to do that kind of setup too? best regards

 

This would be a great game mechanic!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Surrexen,

 

 

solid work, I love that mission. Any chance to maybe make the airfields capturable? I would love to play this in rather a "continuous capture" way than single missions. you see any possibility to do that kind of setup too? best regards

 

Sorry this is not going to happen as that would require a major re-write of the code, and mission design/layout. I have said previously that airfield capture was not something I was planning on doing.


Edited by Surrexen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The current big question for everyone is this ... who is planning on getting the Supercarrier module, and who is not ... I originally intended to replace the Stennis fleet with a Supercarrier fleet when the time comes ... but I am aware this would not be ideal for some people. Also didn't really want to have to put 2 fleets in the same mission, nor do I want to have 2 seperate versions of Snowfox (and Clear Field) where one version is Supercarrier and the other version is not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would let the default fleet in place, and those interested can replace it by their own. Supercarrier will not be a very popular module, specialyy for new commers.

Romanian Community for DCS World

HW Specs: i7-8700K@5GHz,ASUS Maximus X Hero, 32GB RAM 3000MHz, MSI Nvidia GTX 1080TI watercooled, Creative SoundBlaster Z, Intel/Samsung M.2 , VKB MCG Pro + Virpil Throttle + Leo Bodnar BU0836(A and X), MFG Crosswind, Logitech G13, TrackIR 5, Oculus Rift S, Stream Deck

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The current big question for everyone is this ... who is planning on getting the Supercarrier module, and who is not ... I originally intended to replace the Stennis fleet with a Supercarrier fleet when the time comes ... but I am aware this would not be ideal for some people. Also didn't really want to have to put 2 fleets in the same mission, nor do I want to have 2 seperate versions of Snowfox (and Clear Field) where one version is Supercarrier and the other version is not.

 

I think leave the default Stennis for now. Unless the new carrier is wildly popular and the majority of people are actually using it, then having the Stennis in so that everyone can use it makes the most sense to me.

 

My worry is that players who don't have the super carrier may skip trying these missions and you'd be splitting your player base. Leave it as default and everyone plays.

 

I'm curious to see what the super carrier brings to the table. When your running these missions, you don't spend a lot of time at the carrier so I'm not sure it's entirely worth it or required to make the sim even more immersive than it already is. You're just not spending that much time interacting with it. So...having not seen the super carrier at all, I feel like it's going to be more of a nice to have than something that'll be over the top cool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think leave the default Stennis for now. Unless the new carrier is wildly popular and the majority of people are actually using it, then having the Stennis in so that everyone can use it makes the most sense to me.

 

My worry is that players who don't have the super carrier may skip trying these missions and you'd be splitting your player base. Leave it as default and everyone plays.

 

I'm curious to see what the super carrier brings to the table. When your running these missions, you don't spend a lot of time at the carrier so I'm not sure it's entirely worth it or required to make the sim even more immersive than it already is. You're just not spending that much time interacting with it. So...having not seen the super carrier at all, I feel like it's going to be more of a nice to have than something that'll be over the top cool.

 

 

Strange, I honestly would have thought more people would be into the carrier module :noexpression:

 

Fair enough, I suppose I will leave it as default then.

 

Meanwhile, I will add some Scud launchers in, and a couple of warships to blow up in the Eastern side for good measure. That will bring the total up to 130 missions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Strange, I honestly would have thought more people would be into the carrier module :noexpression:

 

Fair enough, I suppose I will leave it as default then.

 

Meanwhile, I will add some Scud launchers in, and a couple of warships to blow up in the Eastern side for good measure. That will bring the total up to 130 missions.

 

I for one will definitely be getting the super carrier and would’ve thought a lot of F-14 & F/A-18 owners will as well. Who knows tho

 

That said I would hope as mentioned above it won’t be too considerably hard to swap out the Stennis for the new carrier in the mission editor on the players end if we wanted to... I’m wondering if swapping out the Stennis for the SuperCarrier will be as simple as selecting it via a drop down like u can for planes in the ME...

 

If anything it would be great to know if you foresee any issues doing so with regards to your scripting? Is there any Stennis specific scripting going on?

i9-9900K @ 5.0GHz, ASUS ROG Z390 MAXIMUS XI HERO, ASUS GeForce RTX 2080Ti 11GB, 32GB DDR4 @ 3866MHZ, 1TB Intel 660P M.2 NVMe SSD, 1TB WD Black SN750 NVMe SSD, Oculus Rift S

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I for one will definitely be getting the super carrier and would’ve thought a lot of F-14 & F/A-18 owners will as well. Who knows tho

 

That said I would hope as mentioned above it won’t be too considerably hard to swap out the Stennis for the new carrier in the mission editor on the players end if we wanted to... I’m wondering if swapping out the Stennis for the SuperCarrier will be as simple as selecting it via a drop down like u can for planes in the ME...

 

If anything it would be great to know if you foresee any issues doing so with regards to your scripting? Is there any Stennis specific scripting going on?

 

There is some scripting that has to do with the Stennis, it will remain to be seen if the scripting works with the new carrier or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Strange, I honestly would have thought more people would be into the carrier module :noexpression:

 

Fair enough, I suppose I will leave it as default then.

 

Meanwhile, I will add some Scud launchers in, and a couple of warships to blow up in the Eastern side for good measure. That will bring the total up to 130 missions.

 

 

That being said....if it seems like the majority of people have it...

 

All your missions can be run without the carrier too, which is cool btw, so even if you did include the super carrier, it's not required. I appreciate that, I end up skipping a lot of missions that require mods.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just figured I'd drop a note to say where things are at as I'm working on a bunch of things at once.

 

Operation Snowfox

 

1. Has been increased to 130 missions

2. Has been given a radio option to smoke the current objective, to avoid the potential for smoke spamming on skip mission etc, the smoke is on a 5 minute cooldown

3. Persistency script changed to not explode statics, just cleanly remove them

4. An Anti-Shipping strike has been added to Sector Seerik via radio to go along with one of the new missions

 

Operation Clear Field

 

1. Has been increased to 125 missions

2. Has been given a radio option to smoke the current objective, to avoid the potential for smoke spamming on skip mission etc, the smoke is on a 5 minute cooldown

3. Persistency script changed to not explode statics, just cleanly remove them

4. Targets at the Gudauta airfield relocated just North of the airfield perimeter to try to avoid blowing up the runway by accident and screwing up the AI. Because of this the Tu-160 has been swapped for an Mi-24V Helicopter. The group name has been left the same so progress will not be affected.

5. The Black Sea Fleet has had the cruiser swapped over to the Moskva instead of whatever the other one was as it was the Moskva that resides in the Black Sea and I care about details like that.

6. EWR radar at Sukhumi airfield has been relocated just outside the airfield perimeter for the same reason as the targets at Gudauta airfield have been moved

7. A Pinpoint Strike has been added to Sector Zugdidi via radio to go along with some of the new missions

 

Operation Black Spire

 

1. Has been given a radio option to smoke the current objective, to avoid the potential for smoke spamming on skip mission etc, the smoke is on a 5 minute cooldown

2. Persistency script changed to not explode statics, just cleanly remove them

3. I think I will relocate the targets from Sector Caliente Charlie and remove that sector from the board, as I don't really like how that plays out, all the others seem fine

 

Operation Secret Squirrel and Jupiter

 

1. Have been given a radio option to smoke the current objective, to avoid the potential for smoke spamming on skip mission etc, the smoke is on a 5 minute cooldown

2. Persistency script changed to not explode statics, just cleanly remove them

3. Briefings for Secret Squirrel Blue Coalition Enguri Dam Flak Battery targets have been corrected

4. Various script fixes and improvements

 

I will hopefully have all this stuff ready to push out the door before next weekend


Edited by Surrexen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

v122 is up

 

Changelog v122

1. Has been increased to 130 missions

2. Has been given a radio option to smoke the current objective, to avoid the potential for smoke spamming on skip mission etc, the smoke is on a 5 minute cooldown

3. Persistency script changed to not explode statics, just cleanly remove them

4. An Anti-Shipping strike has been added to Sector Seerik via radio to go along with one of the new missions

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...