Jane's F/A-18 Mission & Campaign Builders Forum

Impressive Info

by

Over the last couple of weeks I think we have seen exchanged and figured out some very important mission building issue's. GCI, Alert Intercept, Ground Battles, Placing Aircraft. There is just a wealth of info on these boards right now. I hope some of you are able to get some new missions posted here and maybe even some awesome CAMPAIGNS! Keep it up fella's.

Posted on Aug 15, 2001, 6:38 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Oh By the way

by

I have also noticed some new names and some old names coming back, Welcome and keep the info coming, and Welcome back.

Posted on Aug 15, 2001, 6:40 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Ground Battles

by Arctic Ranger

Alright, this thread isn't about HOW to create a ground battle, the thread is a set of questions and information ABOUT ground battles.

Just today, in light of all of the question(s) concerning ground battles, I decided to create my own mini-battle. Each side US military vs. Red Russian military had equal number of tanks, APCs, IFVs, and so on, to eliminate any advantages. The battle was AWESOME (I'm easily impressed)! You could hear the sounds of the explosions, and see the ground troops being systematically destroyed! Well, it came down to two T 117 (or whatever that Red Russian tanks is named) and one M 11A/B Abram tank. And sadly, the Abram lost... but oh well! The show was SWEET!

I built the ground battle with individual tanks, but did put them in group formations. The units ended up pretty far apart, but I don't think it really mattered. I would enjoy hearing some opinions on how YOU build YOUR ground battles. And, do you guys use any randomness to the battles and/or use timed starts?



Posted on Aug 15, 2001, 1:28 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Ground battles

by Teemaz

I usually go for groups of tanks, quite a few per side, varying time-of-engagement, range, aspect and formations. This ensures a totally unpredictable result. The rest of the message is a repost:

I am so thankful for all the aid I have recieved here that I feel obliged to share the knowledge I have gained with others. After innumerable tests with variations on tank battles, here are the pearls of wisdom I have gleaned thus far:

1. Make sure neither side is hampered by any not immediately apparent enemies. E.g. if the battle takes place near an airfield, one or the other of the tank groups will have to focus on the airfield as well as the other tank group and will definitely lose as a result.

2. Make sure u use the "attack enemy targets along path" option rather than the "attack specific target" option. The latter seems to target only the lead vehicle in the group targeted.

3. Terrain counts! Not only disallowing engagements in some cases but also giving one side or the other an advantage.

4. If the tanks stop at any waypoints whilst in the battle it is a good idea to check the "fire weapon while waiting" option. This prevents a characteristic pause in their attack logic.

5. Unless it is ur intention for one side to lose make sure both sides are evenly matched.

6. Tanks in Trail formation are more vunerable than those in other formations.

Finally, there is one last element I will be checking soon, though if anyone already knows the answer I would like to hear it. The question is this:
Does the direction of tank movement count? For instance, I have noticed thus far that flank attacks offer some advantages, but I would like that confirmed. Also what about if one side is pursuing the other - of course the pursued must take a rather meanering course to allow the pursuer to catch up - who has the advantage.

Let me know ur thoughts..

Posted on Aug 15, 2001, 2:55 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Ground Battle Stuff

by

Flanking manuvers will give the advantage to the Flanker and not the Flankee. It gives a bigger target and also gives the element of surprise for someone to come from the side. Also I don't know how the smart the AI is to be able to make a good guess at how vehicles will react to flanking attacks. Just remember that if engaged to the front then a flanking manuver will be very effective. If not engaged to the front, then the vehicles will prolly react to the flanking manuver better.

Posted on Aug 15, 2001, 6:31 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Firing paths

by

I've found that sometimes tanks, and particularly IFVs armed with missiles, tend to blow themselves up when firing up hills.

It's not always possible to tell from the map when this is going to happen so you have to set things up and watch in the mission. If you have a group of tanks heading towards enemies on the other side of a hill, it's best to give them a waypoint with no action first and only give the 'attack enemies along path' when they reach the top of the hill.

There is a maximum number of moving vehicles you can have in a mission. This is about 200. I don't think it matters how many groups you have. One reason to use groups rather than individual vehicles, though, is that there is a limitation on how many groups JSTARS can track.

Using helicopters and attack aircraft on CAS can also make the outcome of ground battles more unpredictable. I have found that helicopters tend to be more effective when told to attack a specific target, so I tend to give them two waypoints over the battlefield: one for the specific target and then a CAS action.

It's tricky to get CAS to work properly for AI aircraft but when it works, it is very effective. The AIs tend to do best when given a heavy bomb load and the radius of action is small with no buildings nearby.

Posted on Aug 16, 2001, 2:00 AM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Battle Effectiveness

by Baron Max

Jay, am I reading your post correctly? In mentioning "effectiveness", are you saying that you can assign GOALS to ground equipment? ...or that they can destroy things?

I've found no way to do that. While the ground battles can be fun to watch, I can't make them "damage/destroy" anything. I can make the END PATH set Flags and such, but left to their own battles, nothing is hit.

Am I missing something? Damage would be great!

Baron Max


Posted on Aug 16, 2001, 4:48 AM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Battle Damage

by Arctic Ranger

What I do to get the tanks to damage/destroy the enemy tanks is make sure I make the tanks close enough to be viewed by the opposistion. I don't know how close they have to be to be noticed by the enemy tanks, though.

Posted on Aug 16, 2001, 5:00 AM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Goals

by Recluse

You can make GOALS out of anything on the ground, moving or static, just like you would if they were bombing targets. Then assing the tanks to destroy them.

Starbuck has used this techinique to set oil tanks on fire, and I have used it to get tanks to destroy aircraft on the ground....though you cannot get the tank to target the aircraft directly.. you need to have the tank target a vehicle (like a tanker truck or one of the invisible ground units) VERY NEARBY and arrange it so a stray round or a collateral damage explosion takes out the aircraft.

As folks have pointed out, though, its a fine art more than a science to make sure the tank is going to engage what you want, when you want...

Recluse

Posted on Aug 16, 2001, 5:05 AM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Ground Battles

by Charlie901

I've found through trial and error that you should have the battle on a relatively FLAT portion of the map or the Sagger/Tow missles wind up hitting the dirt instead of their intended target. BTW if you zoom in close you can observe the spent shells getting ejected especially from the BMP's.

Posted on Aug 16, 2001, 11:34 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Reboot=Alert

by Baron Max

I've been playing with the "Alert Intercept" command most of the day. I've had mixed results that made no damned sense to me. However, in light of that "Invalid Page Fault" thing and my CTDs at mission end, I decided to test something else ... namely my computer!

At 10,000ft, 350knots, 60nm from the "Alert" airbase. Two MIG-29s on Alert Intercept, 40nm range, with an TS at the base GCI linked to TS sites on my ingress path. Starting from about 70nm from the base:

With a "fresh reboot", the MIGs were alerted and took off before we got within 30nm - usually closer to 35nm! If I ran the test WITHOUT rebooting, the MIGs NEVER took off - even when we buzzed the airstrip!

Just to be sure, I ran that same test 10 times! Ten times out of ten, immediately after rebooting, the MIGs were alerted. Personally, I think that test tells me something ... tho' I ain't got the foggiest idea WHAT?

Baron Max

Posted on Aug 15, 2001, 12:56 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

System Problems

by

Baron Max,

What OS are you running and how much RAM?

Sounds like you have an atrocious resource leak somewhere, but it can't be from F/A-18, otherwise lots of people would be complaining?! Is it possible those new video drivers that fixed your A/G radar could be a little TOO beta?

Posted on Aug 16, 2001, 8:17 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

I told u I'd be back!

by Teemaz

Ok, now that I have some grasp of how to control moving vehicles, the next step is to figure what the roles of the different types are. I'd appreciate a web-based resource or even a quick run-down of the duties, effective engagement ranges and limitations of some of the vehicles.I know some, e.g. apc=armoured personnel carrier, M1ABT= Abrams M1 tank, ZSU=two different flavours of mobile AAA based on no. and gauge of guns, plus am I right in assuming LAV= Land assault vehicle?

The ones I'm most interested in are:
1.IFVs, difference between BMP and BRDM flavours
2.differences between LAV-25 APC, LAV-AD and LAV-TOW
3.what BTR stands for in BTR-60 APC



Posted on Aug 15, 2001, 10:42 AM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Nomenclaturre

by Recluse

LAV = Light Amphibious Vehicle (series fielded by the US Marine Corps)

All are on the same chassis, but differ in armament

LAV-25: Armed with 25 mm Bushmaster cannon
LAV-AD: Air Defense Variant, armed with Stinger Missiles
LAV-TOW Anti Armor varian with TOW (Tube Launched Optically Tracked Wire Guided) Missiles.

Recluse

Posted on Aug 15, 2001, 12:11 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

LAV

by

Just one correction, Recluse!

LAV=Light Armored Vehicle, vice Amphibious. It can ford, but no surf stuff. (Amphib vehicles are the AAAVs and LVTPs.)

Posted on Aug 16, 2001, 8:21 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Missed A few

by Recluse

Oops didnt have the message text in front of me when I replied on the LAV's:

The BMP is a Russian IFV and sports a fairly large cannon as well as the potential to carry anti-tank missiles. Similar to the US M-2 Bradley.


The BRDM is more similar to the US M-113 APC, and is mostly an Armored Personnel Carrier with a light machine gun for armament, but can also be fitted with anti-armor missiles in a Tank Destroyer variant

The BTR-60 is a similarly lightly armed APC.

BMP, BTR, BRDM are all Russian acronyms which denote some kind of armored personnell vehicle/infantry fighting vehicle. You can probably find them at http://www.fas.org or by a Google search for those acronyms.

The BRDM and BTR-60 are wheeled vehicles and the BMP is tracked...If I remember correctly..

Recluse


Posted on Aug 15, 2001, 12:18 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Thanx

by Teemaz

Thanx once again for the info.. but like I've already said this can only beget more questions..

Posted on Aug 15, 2001, 2:09 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Summary of Exhaustive testing

by Teemaz

I am so thankful for all the aid I have recieved here that I feel obliged to share the knowledge I have gained with others. After innumerable tests with variations on tank battles, here are the pearls of wisdom I have gleaned thus far:

1. Make sure neither side is hampered by any not immediately apparent enemies. E.g. if the battle takes place near an airfield, one or the other of the tank groups will have to focus on the airfield as well as the other tank group and will definitely lose as a result.

2. Make sure u use the "attack enemy targets along path" option rather than the "attack specific target" option. The latter seems to target only the lead vehicle in the group targeted.

3. Terrain counts! Not only disallowing engagements in some cases but also giving one side or the other an advantage.

4. If the tanks stop at any waypoints whilst in the battle it is a good idea to check the "fire weapon while waiting" option. This prevents a characteristic pause in their attack logic.

5. Unless it is ur intention for one side to lose make sure both sides are evenly matched.

6. Tanks in Trail formation are more vunerable than those in other formations.

Finally, there is one last element I will be checking soon, though if anyone already knows the answer I would like to hear it. The question is this:
Does the direction of tank movement count? For instance, I have noticed thus far that flank attacks offer some advantages, but I would like that confirmed. Also what about if one side is pursuing the other - of course the pursued must take a rather meanering course to allow the pursuer to catch up - who has the advantage.

Let me know ur thoughts..

Posted on Aug 15, 2001, 2:51 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Controlling ground AI units

by Teemaz

Hello, and thank you for an invaluable resource. I wouldn't have dreamed of taking on the design of a mission without the information on this site.

Now, I am working on my first "large" mission and have run across a few problems regarding the control of AI units.

1. I'd like friendly ground units to fire on enemy units - not necessarily destroy them but to just provide the extra bit of realism. At present nothing short of specifically assigning a target seems to work. "Attack enemy targets along path" only seems to work for enemy units, friendlies do nothing.

2. How do I prevent units that are proceeding in trail formation from stopping dead in their tracks once the front vehicles are destroyed?

3. Is it possible to have units change formation between one waypoint and the next, i.e. trail formation to wp1 then wedge to wp2 and then back to trail to wp3?

thanx in advance

Posted on Aug 15, 2001, 7:42 AM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Questions

by Arctic Ranger

Here are the best answer I can think of for your questions:

1.) You also can try attack specific target, or attack while waiting. But, I think I heard that only the "leader" tank fires (I read that here somewhere).

2.) Under the Attack targets along path and attack specific target buttons, there is a formation button/list.

3.) I'm not sure about this, but I think it is possible.

Posted on Aug 15, 2001, 8:38 AM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Try this

by

I created a mission where 4 Abrams tanks were traveling in trail formation and a group of Soviet vehicles were placed individually in a spread formation traveling at the Abrams. Both were given whatever command it was to attack any enemy along the way. I entered the mission got to a safe altitude and hit autopilot at about 300 kts and then hit F12. F12 puts you outside the AC and allows you free rein to look around the world using the look around hat switch and the + and - key on the keypad.

What I did was focus on the armor battle. BMP's with anti-armor missiles always fired first as they our range even the Abrams. Also a big factor in who fired first was the terrain. If the terrain is roling, they might not see each other, which happened a few times. Indeed once the formation is stopped, for a few minutes the formation stayed intact and the only person who did fire was the lead tank until he was destroyed. After a few minutes the other tanks went around but it took awhile. I changed formation for the next test and they all fired on the on-coming hoard.

I then individually placed the Abrams in a defensive posture instead of putting a group of 4. I then had the Soviets attack again and man oh man what a battle. Seems that the logic in the first tests were slow to switch to the other tanks in the trail formation. Placing them individually gives them free rein. If you want a group in trail formation you can still do it individually because they all travel the same speed. You would just have to use the waypoints liberally. Trail formation of one group of vehicles places them too close together, realistically, anyways. Takes more time to place individually but the results are far more realistic.

Posted on Aug 15, 2001, 9:03 AM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

WOW

by Teemaz

Yep, I just needed ur confirmation as to the correctness of my steps... It allowed me to narrow my error-possibilities. So I changed the friendlies to IFVs because of the clearly visible trajectories of their ammo (btw, what are IFVs?) and found that the problem was that a nearby airbase was being treated as an enemy airbase and thus recieved a good amount of their attention... to solve this I moved the site of the battle a bit farther away and let the fireworks begin.... AWESOME!

One final note though... attack specific target seems to limit the attact to the lead enemy tank, OTOH, "attack enemies along path" works exactly as expected now.

So thank you once again for some invaluable input. I'll be coming back for more soon, HEHEH! A good deed rarely goes unpunished!

Posted on Aug 15, 2001, 10:21 AM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

IFV

by Saxon_131st

IFV= Infantry Fighting Vehicle

Posted on Aug 15, 2001, 11:24 AM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Kammack's GCI Tests?

by Baron Max

Kammack, I don't know what you put into those test files, but they crash my computer! I can fly the missions a couple of times or so, then its CTD at "End Mission". I get "invalid page fault" for the F/A-18 program and have to reboot.

However, if the initial test flights on a "fresh computer" are any indication of a properly functioning F/A-18, then the GCI linking DOES work. The missiles launch sooner by some 15-20nm. HOWEVER, with each flight, the program degrades considerably. If I make it to the "third round" of tests, the program is so degraded that the GCI makes little or no difference! Its as tho' the degraded program doesn't recognize the GCI. ...makes me nervous about tesint anything!!:)

Does anyone know what the following means:

F18 caused an invalid page fault in
module SKUNKCTL.DLL at 0167:01533ab9.
Registers:
EAX=00000000 CS=0167 EIP=01533ab9 EFLGS=00010246
EBX=00000000 SS=016f ESP=0190f9fc EBP=0124b018
ECX=00000000 DS=016f ESI=00000000 FS=1247
EDX=8174c7d0 ES=016f EDI=0190fa80 GS=0000
Bytes at CS:EIP:
8b 06 6a 00 8d 4c 24 0c 6a 01 51 6a 00 56 c7 44
Stack dump:
00000000 0379f420 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000

***And how to fix it???***

Baron Max

Posted on Aug 15, 2001, 4:15 AM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

CTD

by

I don't know what your problem is, but you might try checking the the size of the file for your default pilot. They're normally under 50k, but sometimes they grow to over 1MB and cause CTDs at the end of the mission.

Posted on Aug 15, 2001, 4:53 AM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Editing Pilot Info?

by Baron Max

Jay, thanks for the tip, but you didn't tell me how to fix it if I found it.

I have several pilots with 53kb and 55kb ... mine (Baron Max) is the default, right? If so, its at 55kb ... how do I fix it?

Baron Max

Posted on Aug 16, 2001, 4:31 AM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Pilot files

by

If it's only 55k it should be OK. After a pilot has a lot of hours, the file can grow over 1MB and then you have problems. The only solution I have ever employed is to delete the file and use a new pilot.

Posted on Aug 17, 2001, 5:23 AM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

CTD on Test Missions

by

Sorry Baron, those test missions have nothing but the bare minimum for testing the GCI test. That SKUNKCTL.DLL file is a Jane's file, but don't know what it does....

Did anyone else download those test missions? If so, did they also get CTDs?

I've run those specific missions dozens of times now, so perhaps the file got mangled on the download?

Posted on Aug 16, 2001, 8:04 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Parked Planes and Alert Intercept

by

I've read several posts about how to have planes on the tarmac - speed=0, alt=0, with a waypoint set in the direction they should face....

When I try that with a small plane (Migs or Sukhois) the plane is in the air when the mission starts orbiting over the airfield, then attacks me. If I place a large plane, it works per the instructions. And yes I have triple-checked the initial action and waypoint action, and they are both blank.

I then looked at the "Pay Back" mission which comes with the game. In that mission, the four enemy planes are on the ground with speed=0/alt=0, have no additional waypoint, and have the initial action set to "drone". They work correctly in that mission, just sitting there. Perhaps the drone action is the only sure-fire way to make planes SIT on the tarmac?

Also, in that same mission there is a two ship enemy flight set on the strip on alert intercept, with reaction range set at 2. I have NEVER had them react after playing that mission literally dozens of times. Has anyone else encountered them?

Posted on Aug 14, 2001, 2:36 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Mig-21 on ground and Alert Intercepts

by

RE: Parked planes, my mistake. The Mig-21 model doesn't "sit" on the ground, it is sunk in the ground with wings at ground level. I kept inching up the starting altitude trying to get AGL to 0, which was causing the plane to start in the air. Once I tried it with different model plane, it works as the posts say, regardless of the drone action.

RE: Alert Intercept, I can't get a range less than 55nm to work. I've tried several variations, different approach routes, different relation to borders/fences, and different starting distances for the player a/c. Even with the range greater than 55nm, it still doesn't work unless I cross a border as well.

EX: (with Fence set for Russia, speed constant at 396 knots, altitude constant at A9.9, heading constant)

Ranges set at 55nm, 60nm, 80nm, starting outside Russia -> alert intercept works.

Ranges set at <55nm, starting both inside and outside Russia -> no intercept ever.

Ranges set at 55nm, 60nm, 80nm, starting inside Russia, -> no intercept ever.

This is after about 24 missions total. Does anyone have a mission that contradicts any of the three statements above? If so, please email it to me at kevin@kammak.com as a zip file. Thanks



Posted on Aug 14, 2001, 4:03 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Parked Aircraft

by Recluse

Heheheh Good Catch!!! The MiG-21 is definitely odd in that regard!! I think the MiG-21 model HAS NO GEAR graphic!! It has the same look when set to TAKEOFF at ALT 0, Speed 0.

If you place a WP to give them direction, and there is ANY ACTION AT ALL at that waypoint, even a FORMATION, they will take off regardless of the fact that the initial setting has no takeoff action..

Will test some of the Alert Intercept stuff above and email you the results if any..

Recluse

Posted on Aug 14, 2001, 4:29 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Alert Intercept Results

by Recluse

Hmmmmm.

OK, just 3 tests so far..

1)From FENCE OUT (RUSSIA) ALERT INTERCEPT set to 50 nm.
About 30 seconds after I hit the 50 nm range, the MiGs launched on me

2)From FENCE IN, Alert Intercept at 50 nm. No launch when 50 nm broken even after 5 min.

3) From FENCE OUT, ALERT INTERCEPT at 30 nm. No launch when 30 nm broken, or ever..


Hmmmmmmm!!! I could have sworn that this was more reliable... but these few tests tend to confirm your observations!!

Recluse

Posted on Aug 14, 2001, 5:06 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Intercepts

by

I can't think of any reason (excluding ROE) why Fence would make a difference nor why you would need to be outside of a minimum range for the Intercepts to work. I'll try to take a look at it when I have a chance but it might be a while.

Elf


Posted on Aug 14, 2001, 7:39 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Thanks

by

Thanks Elf. Look forward to any info you might have!

Posted on Aug 16, 2001, 8:14 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Alert Intercepts

by

Thanks Recluse. Glad it is that odd on your machine too!

Don't know if it matters, but my mission used existing airbases, specifically the Murmask NE base (TACAN 62 in the IlsFlds.cmf template).

Another post about AI stated they got better results with plug-in aifields, which I will try tonight.

Also, the test mission had 4 EW radars and a SOC, GCI-linked. I had no change in performance with regard to reboots, Baron.

Posted on Aug 16, 2001, 8:11 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

MIG-21

by Recluse

I watched a MiG-21 come in for landing. He put down his gear just fine, but on touchdown sank into the runway as he appears when waiting to take off..

Must be that heavy centerline fuel tank!!

Recluse

Posted on Aug 14, 2001, 5:33 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

MiG-21

by

I think the gear state vs. bit was swapped after F-15 and since the MiG-21 was from F-15 it might have been missed when things were converted. Not 100% on this though.

Elf


Posted on Aug 14, 2001, 7:41 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

AI wingmen in line for take off on ground base

by Arctic Ranger

I've noticed that that your wingmen, when waiting for take off clearance at a ground base, start with their wheels UP! So, they never retract! This, oddly, is different with a carrier take off.

Also, just an oddity, in one of my missions, I have my flight and a flight of F-16 set to take off at a ground base. Well, the aircraft OVERLAP each other making the player's flight of F/A-18s have a third tail "fin", and the outline of the overlapping aircraft in it!

Posted on Aug 14, 2001, 6:28 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Wheels up

by Recluse

The gear will be down as long as you set the ALTITUDE and SPEED to 0 with the TAKEOFF option in the inital aircraft screen. The AI wingmen act like the other AI (on bellies) when ALTITUDE is set to something other than 0 or speed is over the Gear Up limit.

I have seen the stacking effect. Got a nice screenshot somewhere of what looks like a Stealth Fighter nose on an F-16 body due to the stacking effect.

Recluse

Posted on Aug 15, 2001, 4:56 AM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Previous post on tests of this

by

Guys if you look in the archive here of about a month ago, and definitely no more then 2 months ago, I conducted a test of AC on the tarmac. I found that the waypoint was not needed to place AC on the ground. I did find that the fighters and helo's would go where placed but the bigger AC had to be placed .25 miles south of where you want them to be on the airfield. Crazy bug but it works perfectly. Check out the thread down the list some.

Posted on Aug 15, 2001, 8:45 AM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Parked Planes

by

Redwolf, I had read your posts and that was great info. My problem was caused by trying to get the Mig-21 "up", which Recluse confirmed can't be done. I had been inching up the AGL trying to get the wheels visible, but the model is screwy. Before knowing that, I was trying various things to get that particular plane to look right on the runway.





Posted on Aug 21, 2001, 9:56 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

ASCII Mission Builder

by TheGipp

Has anyone ever thought about/seen/built a mission de-compiler and compiler. It'd be really nice for tracking "glitches" in a mission.
Here's what I envision:
1) decompile a mission into an ASCII file
2) edit the mission using your favorite editor
3) recompile it

This would give (I believe) a lot more control
PLUS be VERY educational for novice builders like me.

I'd also think it be easier to mix separate features of our favorite missions easier.

Anyway.... any idea on the format of the mission files.
I'd be happy to start coding if this seems doable and with a little more info..

TheGipp

Posted on Aug 14, 2001, 11:51 AM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

A little more info

by TheGipp

I've started trying to reverse engineer
the .cmf file. I've done this several times
before for other binary data files.

Looks like this one might be trouble.
A simple mission (default) has
a relatively small file - managable
in my mind for the purposes of
reverse engineering the file format.
However, if I switch from call sign
Cobra to call sign Manta (or whatever)
a significant portion of the .cmf file
changes....whereas I was suspecting a
byte or two to change.

could this be due to data compression?
I'd find it hard to believe that the
authors would go to the trouble of
compressing mission data.

Is ANYONE interested in this kind of thing?

What if I did it all on my own?

Would anyone use such a thing as a
mission file dump utility that would
print out all relevant data in a .cmf
file in a human readable format?

TheGipp


Posted on Aug 15, 2001, 11:45 AM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Mission Format

by Recluse

Back in the ATF days, where the mission files were actually ASCII, a friend of mine wrote a little program to generate random missions (sort of like the INSTANT ACTION generator, but with more complexity).

So, your efforts to convert a mission file into ASCII may have some neat effects on the ability to manipulate things. I'm not sure if anyone has looked in depth at the .cmf format, though I remember way back when F/A-18 first came out, some of the folks were talking about making some addons so that e.g. you could place an entire Carrier Battle Group in one shot instead of using individual ships...which would be a great advance. Ditto with auto placing GCI/SAM networks instead of linking one at a time.

IF your research can aid in this kind of stuff, it is a definite help to the mission builder.

You might want to contact Team SuperHornet..

check out the link from http://ham.dogfighter.com/superhornet

Recluse

Posted on Aug 16, 2001, 5:02 AM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Mission Files

by

The mission files are compressed. CMF stands for something like "compressed mission file". Part of the reason this was done was to make it easier to send missions during multiplayer games and for people up/downloading missions on the net.

Elf


Posted on Aug 16, 2001, 6:59 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Alert Intercept problem

by

Help!

Trying to play around with alert intercept. I put a two plane enemy flight on a runway, speed=0, agl=0, initial action=alert intercept, range=50nm. I added two EW sites, on near the airbase, one on the coast, and linked them.

When I fly the mission, I can't see the planes on the runway, and no one ever intercepts me.

I also added a moving area event based on the enemy flight, triggered by me getting within 45nm of them. That fires (just a message), so apparently the enemy planes are in the game, but invisible and inactive!!

I have the fence set, the planes are marked "enemy", I am marked "friendly", all the ground objects are marked "enemy", what have I missed?

Anyone have a mission with alert interceptors that I can look at?

Posted on Aug 14, 2001, 3:37 AM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Alert Intercept

by Baron Max

Kammack, while others don't seem to have the problem, I've found that if the alert aircraft don't have a waypoint, they MAY OR MAY NOT, take off. I simply place a waypoint at the end of the runway to circumvent those odds.

The range of the "Alert Intercept" is also a minor issue for me ... if I want a 20nm alert, I have to set the range to 40 or 60nm. Again, its my observations that the GCI linking makes no difference. (The EW also must be VERY close to the airport.)

As to the aircraft not showing as you fly over, you must have them set, in the initial "Place Aircraft" window, as "Invisible til Start".

I can set up and send you a mission, but if you just try it all again, FROM SCRATCH and being careful, it should work.

Baron Max

Posted on Aug 14, 2001, 4:26 AM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Alert Intercept

by Recluse

Should work. The aircraft ARE invisible until they are triggered. I think this was explained as a way of cutting down on unnecessary objects until they were needed for CPU utilization (it was this way in F-15)

Always keep in mind that an aircraft flying along at 400 knots is covering 7 nm/minute. It takes a finite amount of time for the Alert to trigger and for the Alert Intercept aircraft to spool up and get in the air, so if it takes 3 minutes from the trigger, the incoming aircraft are already 21 nm closer, so for an Alert Intercept radius of 50 nm, it isn't surprising that the aircraft may not get airborne and begin to engage unit the approaching aircraft are now 30 nm away. In Real Life(tm) an Alert 5, with minimum 5 minute reaction time is pretty good.. but maybe not good enough in the age of supercruising aggressors!

I have several working Alert Intercept test missions that I can send you or post tonight when I get home..
The proximity of the EW sites to the airport is critical.

There is a strange bug with Alert Intercept that we have noticed: Technically, alert intercept aircraft are available for tasking from a "REQUEST ASSISTANCE" call, but no matter how many Alert aircraft are on the runway, only one seems to jump up in the air to assist.

Recluse

Posted on Aug 14, 2001, 4:38 AM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Alert Intercepts

by Baron Max

Recluse, in my F/A-18, those guys ARE visible ... even if they aren't triggered or taking off. I've flown over them many, many times at 20ft AGL ... usually yelling at them to hurry up and take off! ...LOL!

Just more evidence that yours and mine ain't the same damned F/A-18! I now have TWO COPIES and both work exacly the same way ... i.e., I don't have a "lemon". My computer just operates differently.

I've also heard the glitch about REQUEST ASSISTANCE and I too, get only one taking off. However, where is it written that those planes are available for the assistance calls? In my own mind, planes on ALERT INTERCEPT are only for enemies falling WITHIN their range ... not for gneral assistance. Aren't they supposed to be protecting that particular facility? If they all fly off on a wild goose chase, the facility is left unprotected ... am I wrong?

Baron Max


Posted on Aug 14, 2001, 10:37 AM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Visible vs Invisible

by Saxon_131st

Is it possible that you have a higher detail setting max? I cant say i've tested it, but it could be why you can see em and recluse cant

Posted on Aug 14, 2001, 10:44 AM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Detail Setting

by

I played with that setting too, but still couldn't see them until they started rolling on the runway.

That DEBUG_NEXT command also didn't show them, until they were "reacting".

Posted on Aug 14, 2001, 12:46 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Visibility

by Recluse

Aircraft are INVISIBLE until triggered if set to an ALERT INTERCEPT initial action. If set to TAKEOFF at a specific time or FLAG, then they are visible. Check again.

(This is with Density setting to ALL)

Recluse

Posted on Aug 14, 2001, 4:34 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Alert Intercept

by

Well, tried lots of different things, and here's what I got....

If I set the alert range to 50 or less, the flight never takes off. Never.

If I set the range higher than 50, the flight takes off as soon as I go fence-in, which is 49 miles from the airfield. This is the same whether the range is set to 80nm, 60nm, or 55nm. I can (somewhat) understand the flight not reacting until I am fence in, but not reacting at all to a range under 50nm seems very odd.

I tried placing waypoints for them, playing with the initial alt/speed, but to no effect.

I also just loitered over the airfield for over fifteen minutes, after flying 60nm at 360 knots TO the airfield, but still no reaction.

Has anyone else seen enemy alert fighters react with an alert radius <=50?

Posted on Aug 14, 2001, 5:37 AM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Alert Intercept Range

by Baron Max

Kammack,

Thats a new one on me. ...and I've had more trouble than anyone on the PLANET! ...LOL!

I regularly set them to 40nm range and they take off without a hitch. I can only think that the TS (tin shield) isn't set close enough ... thats all I can think of. (???)

Try what I do: If something does work right, start a BRAND NEW mission and lay it out again ... carefully. Don't go back and try to modify the first one - if there is a glitch, its still there.

Also, Recluse says they're invisible prior to take off, but in my F/A-18, I've flown over them many, many times ... they're just sitting there lookin' pretty.

Baron Max

Posted on Aug 14, 2001, 10:26 AM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Various intercept things

by

This is a jumble of stuff not based off just this post.

Alert Intercepts will be invisible until called to action (this keeps them from clogging the runway).

If your ROE is set so you can fire at will (it's been a while so I forget which is which) I don't think the fence makes a difference.

I don't remember any minimum requirements for alert intercepts. It definitely takes things a little bit to get going in a regular mission. You also might want to try adding in some other radar types into the web. Different radar types are better at different ranges and things. This includes at what angles they can see you. If you're flying over a radar you might be in the cone where he can't see you. Also make sure the sides of your bogeys, radars and airfields match. I'm not 100% on needing the airfield to match but wouldn't hurt.

Hope this helps.

Elf


Posted on Aug 14, 2001, 7:35 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Intercept Testing

by Panga

This is my first post to this site, so here goes.

I've been testing the alert intercept recently and my results agree with what Elf says. I get best results using a network of radars.

I placed an airfield in Russia about 50nm from the Fence, with an EW close by. A couple of Migs with alert range of 50nm.

They didnt respond until less than 20 nm from the airfield and were only takin off as i got there, easy targets.

I found that by constructing a network of ew radar, control centers etc, the migs responded when I was about 30 nm out. Increasing the number of planes in my flight also increased the Migs response range. I will test this a bit further.

I also noticed that using airfields already on the map didn't seem to work at all.

panga

Posted on Aug 16, 2001, 9:25 AM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

GCI Testing

by

Baron, I've got to disagree with you about GCI! Finally got some time to play around with this part of the MB, and got some great results.

All other things being equal, the LACK of GCI links allowed me to travel ~22nm deeper into bad guy land before the first SAM launch. In addition, the total number of SAM launches was far lower without GCI links than with.

I don't have hard numbers on the total SAM launches, because after the first launch, I started playing and firing SEADs (got to have SOME fun while testing).

This testing consisted of two missions, identical except for the GCI linking. I ran the mission with GCI 4 times, the one without 2 times.

Each time my altitude was fixed @ A9.9, speed fixed at ~360knots, heading fixed towards one of the SAM sites which was also waypoint 1. As I said, the metric used was distance travelled before first launch, as measured from waypoint #1.

Actual numbers:

With GCI, distance from WP1 at first launch:
52.2nm, 54.1nm, 52.2nm, 52.3nm

Without GCI, distance from WP1 at first launch:
30.7nm, 29.7nm

There were four SAM sites, all SA-10C, four EW sites, and a Sector Operations Center. With GCI, all EW sites and 3 SAM sites were "children" of the SOC, and the fourth SAM site was child of closest EW site. I couldn't get eight children for a single parent, is that a hard limit (7 child sites)?

If anyone is interested in seeing the actual mission files, just email me and I'll send them.

Posted on Aug 14, 2001, 1:23 AM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

GCI Test Missions

by

Kammack, please send me the mission designs.

I'm more curious about the difference in my F/A-18 compared to others than the GCI issue. I've found many variations that aren't easily explainable ... like my AA radar ain't worth a damn compared to what others claim they can see.

I've tested GCI linking 'til I'm blue in the face, but I'm willing to test your missions and try to get the same results. I DO HOPE it works ... that its been something that I've been doing wrong! Nothing would make me happier!

Baron Max

Posted on Aug 14, 2001, 4:13 AM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

GCI

by Recluse

Thanks Kammak...we've been arguing over this for quite some time..glad to have someone else who has demonstrated the GCI effect.

Baron Max, I think I've asked you this before but ARE YOU SURE THAT YOU ARE MAKING THE GCI LINKS??? In other words, do you see the BLUE LINES connecting the radars?

You need to be at a pretty high ZOOM level to see them, and you cannont GCI link ALL radars. A ground site may have several radars (e.g. AAA site with FIRE CAN and another Radar) and only one of them is available for GCI linking. Other than the BLUE line appearing, there is no other feedback that the LINK has been made. Since they are hard to see, I usually put all the SAM/AAA/GCI/SEC OPS sites I want very close together, zoom in, and do the linking so I can verify the Blue Line. THEN I drag the units to where I want them. It can be VERY frustrating trying to link distant sites, since the GCI LINK gets 'lost' sometimes when the map is unzoomed and panned then zoomed again to get a distant site...

Recluse

Posted on Aug 14, 2001, 4:44 AM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

GCI limit

by

Recluse,

What about that limit of 7 children? Is that a real limit?

Posted on Aug 14, 2001, 5:39 AM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Limit

by Recluse

I wasn't aware of the limit, but it isn't unreasonable that there is one. I'll try to get ELF to take a look at this thread and provide some info.

Probably a workaround is to have on of the children be another EW or SECTOR OPS site which can then have 7 children.....


Recluse

Posted on Aug 14, 2001, 7:35 AM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

GCI limit

by Arctic Ranger

When I was working on my mission template for my campaign, I once had an EW or Tin Shield with 16 children linked to it. I think 16 is the limit for the number of children of one radar site because I couldn't link anymore once I got 16.

I'm not sure if the GCI children" limit defers for different radars.

Posted on Aug 14, 2001, 7:48 AM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

GCI Limit

by

Thanks Arctic. I'll try different parent objects then.

Posted on Aug 14, 2001, 1:15 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

GCI Limit

by

I'm pretty sure the max number of children a site can have is 20. With some of the plug-ins some of these children will already be assigned to things within the plug-in itself. Of course children can have children.

Elf


Posted on Aug 14, 2001, 7:13 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Little Blue Lines!

by Baron Max

Yep, Recluse, lots of little blue lines all over the place. As difficult as they are to connect, I'd surely remember THAT! ...LOL!

My F/A-18 just doesn't work like everyone elses, thats all there is to it! And, since I have two copies, it ain't the F/A-18, its the differences in computer systems. ...what else could it be?

Baron Max

Posted on Aug 14, 2001, 10:41 AM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

GCI Test Missions

by

Baron & anyone else that is interested:

I put the GCI test missions at the following URL:

http://www.kammak.com/fa18/gcitest.zip

Please let me know if you get different results from my with the same flight profile.

Posted on Aug 14, 2001, 1:25 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

There's gold in these messages

by

What a shame there isn't a search for this board! I got through about page 12, and found some great messages. Seems like Elf had more time to answer questions a few months back? If nothing else, just having his messages grouped together would be a real time saver.

And I apologize for my post about creating a FAQ - you guys have only read that a few dozens times haven't you?

How are the messages actually stored in this board? Is there any way to get a dump of them, so we could at least index them by topic and page number? I've got some spare SQL server space that I could play around with. Let me know, Recluse!

Posted on Aug 12, 2001, 1:02 AM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Compiled Info

by Baron Max

Kammak, even tho' there is a wealth of info here, compiling it, editing it and TESTING it is NOT a bad idea at all. The time spent searching the "endless" messages is difficult at best ... not to mention while you're searching one topic, dozens of other topics arise.

Its not much different from any other "field of study", is it? Where would other subjects be if no one ever wrote a book on it? Without books, we'd all have to start all over in our college studies, right?

If you know it, write a book on it.

Baron Max

Posted on Aug 12, 2001, 4:51 AM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Compilation

by Recluse

<sigh> I've thought about this many times.

When we (that should be Fred 'Baldeagle' Balding, who did just about ALL the website setup stuff)started this, there was no idea that this board would be so popular, since there were so many other similar forums, including a Mission Builders Mailing list... so, Baldeagle wisely set up this forum as the Network54 FREEBIE, which includes no search capablilties. Many times we have considered upgrading, but that wouldn't index existing messages, where the GOLD is stored, so it didn't seem worthwhile. I looked around the Network54 site and didn't see any obvious ways of capturing all this info I suppose it might be worthwhile actually contacting Network54 and asking the question. It would be cool to get this into some kind of searchable format...LOL, does anyone use GOPHER or WAIS anymore??????????

Recluse

Posted on Aug 12, 2001, 7:27 AM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

replacing CAP aircraft once they leave/run out of missiles

by

I have an idea. But I don't know how to implement it.

Say you have CAP aircraft and they get routed by the AWACS somewhere in response to a threat. Once they're out of ammo - then what?

Howabout if you were to have a flag set when they ran out of ammo, left their area (can you have a flag trigger when an AI a/c *leaves* an Action Area?), or if they pass a fence, etc.

Can this happen?

Can you guys give me ideas as to how to make this happen?

Posted on Aug 10, 2001, 11:09 AM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Replacements

by Recluse

Unfortunately, there is no easy way to do this.
Pretty much the only way to have OUT OF AMMO trigger something is to make it a condition of a WAYPOINT action, e.g. CAP until Out of Ammo. I don't know exactly what that means...i.e. will they be out of ammo if they still have a few rounds left in the cannon??

As for triggering a flag when an AI leaves an area, there are 2 ways to do it, neither of which is that good. One is to use a WP action, so when the AI reaches a WP, the flag is triggered. This is problematic as, if the AI is getting vectored around for other duties, it may take them awhile to get around to resuming course to that WP.

Another way is to use a MOVING AREA event, but this is very tricky as you can't select a particular AI, only FRIENDLY, ENEMY or PLAYER, though you can select the object for the moving area to be relative to...and now you have the issue that if the unit gets x distance away from the relative object, he might be DEEPER in enemy territory rather than farther away!!

The regular area event can only be triggered by the PLAYER...

I may be missing some other clever ways..but I think this is about all that is available..

Recluse

Posted on Aug 11, 2001, 10:49 AM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Replacement CAP

by

RE: The out of ammo part, here is what I do (but I haven't tried it :)).

As Recluse said, put the CAP break condition be "out of ammo" and set the flight's waypoint back to the carrier for landing.

Have the waypoint after the CAP waypoint trigger a user flag.

Have a second CAP flight on the carrier, initial action=takeoff, launch flag being the user flag per above.

RE: The out of zone part, an idea:

Since you, as the MB, know where the enemy flight is coming from, hack it a bit - set a waypoint for the enemy flight that is within the CAP response range of the initial CAP flight. At that enemy waypoint, set a user flag that triggers the second CAP flight to launch from the carrier.

It then should appear in the mission that the enemy flight enters the CAP zone, the CAP flight responds, and the second CAP flight launches to cover the gap.

-Kevin




Posted on Aug 11, 2001, 7:20 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

CAP Actions

by Baron Max

Recluse is right, its a difficult thing to make happen!

I don't know how thoroughly you've tested the CAP action, but in all my tests, it doesn't seem to work as we might think. Set up, fly a test and check the PlayBack ... its disconcerting!

The AI go into the elongated orbit for the CAP as they should, splitting into two groups in opposing orbits. However, at the 'break orbit' Flag (or the time limit), they don't break orbit.

In my tests, 4 F-14s split into the double-orbit patrol, but upon the Flag being triggered, only one F-14 broke off and headed back to the carrier. The others ramained in orbit.

The "Time" condition produced the same results. I haven't/can't test the "Ammo Depleted" condition ... I don't know how to know when they've depleted their ammo?

In answer to your main question; I use "Fighter Sweep" (with VERY short range) for all stand-by air support, not "Orbit"(they break for anything!) or "CAP". ...waypoint paths are a pain, but it works.

Has anyone found/tested different results or found other solutions?

Baron Max



Posted on Aug 12, 2001, 4:42 AM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Question about creating an escort mission

by Arctic Ranger

Alright, here is a question concerning the creation of a player-flown escort. Hopefully, it hasn't been covered yet!

1.) When I build a player-flown escort mission, the waypoints always seem to be messed up! The player's waypoints work fine from takeoff to the time I assign the player an escort action at a waypoint. After I reach the escort waypoint, the waypoint number resets to waypoint 0, skipping all of the other waypoints, even if the player has waypoints AFTER being released from being escort!
What am I doing wrong?



Posted on Aug 9, 2001, 5:49 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Player as Escort

by

As the escorting flight, its your task to follow the flight ... so you don't need waypoints. As to waypoints past the "Release Escort", check below.

I've ran several tests of the player escorting AI and I'm baffled?

First, the AI doesn't acknowledge your escort - even tho' the player calls his position and intentions. The only radio command on the ESCORT menu is "Check Out", so there is no communications possible that I can find.

Second, the "Release Escort" waypoint did NOT release the escort, nor did the waypoint ACTION trigger my messages for test confirmation. It did, however, seem to trigger the AI to call for help against enemy aircraft (there were NO enemies in the mission!), then that he was shot down, then his message that he was safely down ... even while the aircraft continued on its plotted course. Baffling???

In answer to your questions; First, its difficult to "escort" the AI properly, because in reality, the escort should be out in front of, above and below, the escorted group. Its almost impossible to see and respond to their flight changes in such a position without radio contact.

Second, in my tests, the AI never released us from the Escort Action. So my flight waypoint remained as W1 throughout the entire flight, even thoough I had designed further waypoints after the "Release Escort" action.

I can only surmise that the programmers didn't consider that the player would ever escort the AI and so didn't include it. It's interesting that in many of my previous missions, I've "escorted" AI but never even noticed those particular points. In reviewing some past designs, I didn't actually have "Escort" as my orders ... I'd set them up only as "flying along and protect them", then just continued with something else.

Just my observations, not explanations!

Baron Max

Posted on Aug 11, 2001, 5:33 AM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

At least I know I'm not alone in my findings!

by Arctic Ranger

Thanks for posting your observations. It'd be cool to get to figure out why we can't be released from escort duty!

Posted on Aug 11, 2001, 5:54 AM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Escort

by Recluse

I'm not sure what you guys are doing wrong..but here are my experiences:

PLAYER F/A-18 (Cobra) and ESCORTED E-2C (Knucklehead)

PLAYER WP 1 has ESCORT action with TARGET as E-2C.
E-2C flies through 3 WPs in a box pattern, with the last one being the RELEASE ESCORTS. THE PLAYER has a WP 2 after the RELEASE ESCORT WP.

First off... WP1 is WP1 and WP 2 is WP 2. No changes.

When I approach the E-2, my alter ego pilot radios: "Knucklehead 1-1 We have you in sight"

I fly around with the E-2C and we he reaches the RELEAS ESCORTS WP, he radios: "Cobra 11, Knucklehead 11, We're headed for home." (I didn't get voice here, just text) At this point the CHECK OUT on my COMMS MENU under ESCORT has changed to a CHECK IN, indicating I have been released. For the heck of it, I sent CHECK IN again, and it changed to CHECK OUT. I hit CHECK OUT, and my alter ego radioed "Cobra 11 is headed for home"

I assume that "I" would have transmitted the message at any time that I chose to break the escort with a CHECK OUT, even if the ESCORTEE wasnt ready to release me.

Now, aside from the fact that the next WP for the E-2C wasn't really a go-home WP, I think that things worked rather well for a scripted escort.

Recluse

Posted on Aug 11, 2001, 10:42 AM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

You're Right!?!?

by Baron Max

Recluse,

I just don't understand ... I set up several missions just like yours, flew them and everything went just fine! I tried to recreate my original, "failure" designs and couldn't do it. (Interesting that you didn't get the voice message ... I do.??)

See? Thats one of the things that drives me crazy ... I can never be sure of my tests, regardless of the care, regardless of what I observe. Its obvious to me that I did something wrong, but the question remains ... and unless we know what it was, others could have the same problem.

In tests, I create several different missions and fly each several of times just to make sure that I've not screwed something up on the first one. ...and I STILL have problems!! ...LOL!!!

As someone else had the same problem on the escorts, a MasterList of issues and glitches would be a great addition to the Mission Builder site. And we have lots of people to help test things, too.

Baron Max

Posted on Aug 12, 2001, 4:12 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Escorts

by Recluse

Well as for the voice, I did put things on the 8x time compression to get near the Waypoint for Release..so maybe that messed up the voice (even though I was back on 1x time when it should have occurred).

I do notice that if there are several .wav files triggered at the same time, e.g. if you set one in a MESSAGE at a waypoint, and there is also a default game voice triggered, you will only get one of them...the USER MESSAGE, if I remember correctly.

IF there is to be a section on glitches, it would have to include the mission in which they occurred. It makes no sense to describe bugs that people will not see when they try to test...but if there are specialized strange conditions that occur with certain mission designs..then those missions should be captured for study. More important than documenting 'bugs' is finding and documenting workarounds so the desired ends can still be achieved.

Recluse



Posted on Aug 13, 2001, 5:23 AM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Campaign builder

by Slingblade

I apologize for asking a question I'm sure has been covered before, but how do you enable your system to build a campaign? Basically, I know that the campaign builder option on the mission builder menu is a "dead" button, but don't know how to get around that.

Posted on Aug 9, 2001, 2:57 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Re: Campaign Builder

by Arctic Ranger

First, to get to the campaign builder, press F1 on the "tools page" in the game. Also, I suggest visiting JayP's site on campaign building. Here's the link:

http://www.geocities.com/jypes/camguide/jf18cambuild1.htm

Hope this helps some!

Posted on Aug 9, 2001, 5:39 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Campaign missions

by

There's a section in the first chapter of my guide which deals with the changes you have to make to the windows registry in order to make campaign missions.

Posted on Aug 10, 2001, 1:21 AM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

AWACS

by fitness88

How is it that just after building a mission, which involved taking off from a carrier, without putting in an AWAC...I was able to call up AWAC reports in the menu while flying?

Posted on Aug 8, 2001, 11:13 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

AWACS vs Strike

by

When you have no AWACS in the mission, your call is transfered to "Strike" on the carrier. And, unfortunately, he seems to know more than AWACS.

I've investigated methods of turning him off, but I ain't found one yet. Even deleting the carrier doesn't do it! "Strike" is the All-Knowing, Ever-present, Voice of knowledge as far as I can tell.

If anyone knows how to turn him off, I'd sure appreciate the hint.

Baron Max

Posted on Aug 9, 2001, 4:43 AM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Strike

by

In the original mission "Payback" there is no AWACs nor strike - I assumed just not placing a carrier would eliminate him. Are you sure about that Baron?

Posted on Aug 11, 2001, 7:11 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Question about the Tu-142 'Bear' in campaign mission 1A02AE

by Arctic Ranger

It has been puzzling to me about how the Tu-142 'Bears' are able to turn around once the okayer reaches a certain distance to the Bears. I've looked at the misson in the mission builder and found these these things concerning the Bears in the mission:

-Moving Area Events which set off a user flag.
-Waypoint up to the USS Reagan is a fighter sweep action.

I think the mission works by using the fighter sweep option. Is this true? How does the mission work!? Making a mission with the Bears using the "turn-around" feature would be awesome! And may even help my campaign!

Posted on Aug 8, 2001, 11:07 AM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Turning Bears

by

The 'cheap' way to do it would be to have the Bears orbit until the player shows up. The two drawbacks to this are that they would never get too close to the CVBG and that if the player caught them on the way in they wouldn't turn back.

The expensive way to do it is to use the 'alt-path' for AI aircraft trick. The problem with this is that you can only do it for one plane, so the player would always know where the threat was coming from.

Clearly there is a third, economical, way to do it. The user flag appears to do no more than set up the mission-success condition. Perhaps an unarmed aircraft on a fighter sweep that encounters an enemy quits its action and goes to the next waypoint.

Posted on Aug 9, 2001, 2:39 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Two Questions (maybe even a possible bug!)

by Arctic Ranger

Question #1:
-What does OCA stand for? What is it?

Question #2 (maybe a bug?)
-Sometimes, when an F-14 is landing, it suddenly pulls up in altitude and begins orbiting, like forty feet off the deck! I DO notice that it sometimes happens when the deck is foul or I'm still sitting on the landing strip of the deck.
-Also with the Tomcat, if it is refueling before me but hasn't hooked up to the S-3B yet, then I check in for refueling, only I get refueled, and the Tomcat does not! The Tomcat only follows the tanker around, just right of the fuel line!

Does anyone know why these occur?

Posted on Aug 7, 2001, 3:33 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Questions

by Recluse

1)Well most acronyms depend on context, but I would guess that the OCA you are thinking of is:

Offensive Counter-Air

missions designed to degrade/destroy enemy aircraft..usually on the ground, but also in the air.

CAP is usually patrolling an area for enemy aircraft to protect something, where OCA is dedicated mission to knock enemy aircraft out.



2)Well, I have occasionally seen AI aircraft circle the deck like that (in my case they were S-3's) even though the deck wasn't foul...in some cases they all landed fine, so I don't know what to say.

As far as refuelling: Was the Tomcat your Wingman (I guess you would be in a Tomcat too in that case) or another AI flight. If another AI flight, it needs a REFUEL action at the waypoint. IF it is indeed heading for the basket when you call the tanker, it SHOULD refuel ahead of you. What are your refuelling options?
Realistic Duration on or off?? If OFF, then when you refuel your wingfolks will be autorefuelled when you come off the basket. If it is ON, the Wingperson will get on the basket when you retract your probe. If you don't retract your probe to signal you are finished, the others may not get on. Its been awhile since I did this, so I don't quite remember exactly the conditions.

Sometimes, I have seen AI aircraft seemingly following the tanker as you describe, but they ARE being refuelled (realistic duration on) as they switch places on the basket. Its hard to know how much fuel they are taking on and how long it will take.

Then again, if you cut him off and jump the basket before him, who knows what will happen.....

Sounds like a Job for Elf for the FINAL ANSWER, but maybe I gave you some hints to figure it out.

Recluse

Posted on Aug 7, 2001, 4:07 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Can the SCUD TEL damage units or buildings?

by Arctic Ranger

I am planning on using SCUD TELs in my campaign, but I need to know if they can damage units and/or buildings. I've seen them launch missiles, but that was against LCACs (which didn't work), so I never went to trying it.

A second part to my question is this. In my campaign, I'm going to hav the Red Russians attack the Blue Russian controlled Olenegorsk air base with SCUD TELs (maybe). Can the SCUD TELs actually damage the air base? Or do they just shoot white lines into the sky?

Posted on Aug 5, 2001, 10:36 AM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

SCUDS

by Recluse

I've had mixed results with SCUDS... sometimes I have had the missiles hit and destroy objects, other times, I have only seen the missile launches, and never saw evidence that they came down. All I can say is test it out and see if they launch at and/or hit your particular target(s) at the range you have set.

I'm not sure of the max range of a SCUD modelled in the sim, or the destructive power of the warhead...but I have gotten them to take out armored vehicles (as a test..these are probably the LAST targets the SCUD would be used for in real life...)

Recluse

Posted on Aug 5, 2001, 1:54 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Campaign Builder Question ???

by Charlie901

Anyone know how to set up a campaign varible (not a random varible)for a mission to branch off in three directions (or more)depending on the outcome?

For example I want my campaign mission to have the default (fail) path, a primary success path and a third path for primary & secondary success. I've got the first two varibles to work flawlessly but I cant seem to get the third varible added in. I cant quite comprehend how the varible system works for more than two campaign varible paths (success & default).

Posted on Aug 3, 2001, 5:40 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Campaign paths

by

I take it that you want three paths leading from a single mission node.

In order for this to work, you have to set up the debriefing groups correctly in the mission AND add the campaign linking information in the mission builder.

That is, you have to specify which debriefing group will set which debrief variable. Having done that, you can then set which paths are to be followed according to the values of the debrief variables in the campaign builder.

All this is covered in more detail in my guide to the campaign builder:

http://www.geocities.com/jypes/camguide/






Posted on Aug 5, 2001, 2:22 AM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Mission Builder FAQ / Bug Report

by

Sorry in advance if this has been addressed before...

Has anyone compiled a list of the quirks and bugs in the mission builder? If so, where is it? If not, anyone else besides me interesting in building one?

Specifically, it appears that the Mission Builder does not adequately filter itself in the options it makes available when building a mission - rather it expects the "builder" to have a lot of knowledge of what will work and work in the sim engine. That's spiffy, but if the m.b. is released to the public, that knowledge has to come in the form of documentation - which I haven't found....

Examples:

A helo on a CVA, initial action=takeoff, criteria is 5 minutes. I would expect that the helo would sit on the deck for five minutes, then launch...in the game the helo takes off immediately.

A prowler flight starts in the air, flys to WP1 and begins SOJ orbit with stop criteria being a user flag. When the flag is set, the prowlers DON'T stop orbiting. Seems they only will stop a SOJ orbit with a time crit, and ignore flags....

An S-3 in tanker orbit will ignore a break-orbit flag if it is refueling a plane at the instant the flag fires...I would have expected the S-3 to finish refueling the current a/c, then break orbit and continue on its merry way....

Things like this would be REALLY helpful to know before spending a few hours trying to "tweak" a mission to make it work right.

So, is there such a FAQ? If not, anyone else want to start building one? (If necessary I can even host it, but it would seem ideal to have it at this site.)


Posted on Aug 3, 2001, 12:45 AM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

FAQ Compilations

by

Kevin,

I'll help you any way I can. I rather enjoy Test Piloting for/about the mission builder designs. I've been doing it on my own for a few months now.

Contact me if you'd like,

Baron Max

Posted on Aug 5, 2001, 4:17 AM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Mission Builder

by Recluse

I just got some time to look at this.

The problem with a FAQ of this kind is people make claims for bugs which more often than not are 'operator error'. You may well blame documentation, as it is rather minimal with the bulk of the information through experience and the kind help of Elf and others.

It sure isn't perfect, and there are bugs and limitations, no doubt... but in the specific cases you mention:

1) This does seem to be a problem. No matter what TIME I set in the TAKEOFF action, the helo sits on deck for about 30 seconds, then takes off. IT can be worked around by using a TIME event to set a FLAG at the appropriate time and having the FLAG trigger takeoff. I did see something odd during the process... SOMETIMES if I set the LPD with the CVN as LEADER, even though the SH-60 had the LPD set as its CARRIER, and had a TAKEOFF action, the helo was sitting atop the water, since the mission builder position of the LPD was not the same as the REAL positions due to the formation with the carrier. If the LPD was a standalone ship, the Helo sat nicely on its deck. I repeated this with the LPD in a different position, but still with CVN as leader, and the helo again nicely sat on the deck, even if the helo itself in the mission builder was somewhat distant from the LPD (as it should be as the CARRIER option should override physical position in most cases..)

2) I have no problem setting a Prowler on SOJ orbit to break orbit on FLAG 1. (I did use a TIME event to set the FLAG, but it SHOULDN'T matter as long as the flag is properly set). Did you include a WP AFTER the SOJ orbit point for the Prowler to go TO when ORBIT is broken? Perhaps that is the problem. Whenever I use FLAGS, I always include a MESSAGE along with the event that triggers the flag to tell me that the FLAG was properly set...otherwise, the problem may be with the flag setting rather than the action to be triggered.

3)I didn't test this, but I would guess that it is a concession to game play to make SURE that the tanker doesn't break off with a plane on the boom. As to why it doesn't break after the refueling is finished, it is possible that, again, as concession to game play, it will wait in case there are others in the flight that still need refueling. I'll take another look if I have some time..

Recluse

Posted on Aug 5, 2001, 6:51 AM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Tanker works too...

by Recluse

Again, I had no trouble getting the tanker to break orbit. If fact, it worked pretty much the way you wanted it to. I arranged things so I was on the basket when the break orbit time came, but the tanker let me refuel. When offload complete, it swung around and took the heading for the next WP and headed to the carrier.

Again, make sure you place a WP after the ORBIT/TANKER PATTERN/AWACS PATTERN WP so the unit has somewhere to GO when orbit is broken..

Relcuse

Posted on Aug 5, 2001, 8:23 AM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Odd

by

Recluse,

I do have waypoints for both the tanker and the SOJ, but when I use a user flag for the break condition (for the SOJ) it does break orbit. The flag is set by a waypoint action, not a timer.

I have confirmed the flag DOES fire, because some of the actions that are supposed to be triggered by the flag work. I then tried using two flags, in case multiple "subscribers" to one flag didn't work, but still the SOJ wouldn't break orbit. Once I changed the SOJ to a timer, it works fine.

RE: The tanker issue, in the specific mission in question, the tanker is refueling a support flight, not the player's flight, when the break flag fires. Again, the flag is triggered by a waypoint, and the tanker does react correctly IF it is not refueling the support flight at the instant the flag fires.

I agree that issues need to be duplicated before adding to a roster. And I'm sure there are workarounds for all of them, but it would be so much nicer if the issue was known in the first place, instead of each MB having to jury-rig things through trial and error.

Thanks for the input though. Let me know if you get different results having the flags set at waypoints instead of time events, and I will do likewise.

Kevin

Posted on Aug 5, 2001, 3:59 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Typo

by

That first sentence should read "...doesn't break orbit" not "does break orbit".

Posted on Aug 5, 2001, 4:02 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Tanker again... OOPS! I didn't read carefully

by Recluse

Ah, OK... I didn't notice that your tanker was refuelling an AI flight. Not sure what will happen...and its a little harder to test w/re to the timing of the AI refuelling. Have all the AI in the flight finished refuelling? The tanker may be waiting till they are all fueled up, or until they depart from the waypoint with REFUEL action...

Recluse

Posted on Aug 5, 2001, 4:51 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Refuelers

by

They definitely won't stop refueling if a flag is triggered. The time AIs consider these flags is during more inactive phases where they're waiting for something to happend. If they're in the middle of something active then they'll wait until they are done. I think guys doing fighter sweeps will check conditions at each waypoint instead of constantly on the fly.

Elf


Posted on Aug 6, 2001, 5:04 AM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Thanks Elf

by

Thanks

Posted on Aug 6, 2001, 11:54 AM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

SOJ

by

You are right about the jammers Recluse. I made a quick mission with just the player, 2 SOJ, and the carrier, with the events set up as they are in my "problem" mission. In the test mission the jammers break just fine with a WP-set user flag.

Must be something screwy in my original mission.

Scratch that one off the list....

Posted on Aug 5, 2001, 4:25 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Mission complexity

by

Yes, sometimes I have noticed that the more complex the mission, with the more stuff going on, sometimes things don't quite work. Often that is due to my losing track of what does what when as much as the mission builder, but sometimes things do seem to get funky..

For the Tanker, here is how I set it up, maybe you can replicate it, or I would be happy to send you the mission:

I set the TANKER to fly TANKER Pattern until UF3.

I set a MOVING AREA event to set a FLAG (UF4) when the PLAYER gets within 1 nm of the S-3B TANKER.

I set a TIME EVENT to trigger at UF4, with a countdown timer of 6 minutes that sets UF3.

I set up Refueling to REALISTIC DURATION, but leave REALISTIC CONSTRAINTS off (to make sure I can plug the basket for testing!!).

In CUSTOM arming, I decrease fuel to 8000 lbs.

I take off, climb to altitude and about 10 nm from the Tanker, I request a full load of fuel. At 1 nm the countdown starts. I plug the basket and stay on receiving fuel. When 6 minutes is up, I still have about 1.5-2K lbs to receive and I stay on the basket until the tanker calls OFFLOAD COMPLETE.. I disconnect, and the tanker then breaks orbit and flys to the carrier. I set the WP after the TANKER PATTERN to a LAND WP, so I can hear the Tanker call its INBOUND to the STRIKE CONTROLLER.

I tried not calling the tanker for fuel, and in that case, the tanker breaks the pattern and heads back to the carrier as soon as the UF3 is triggered.

Let me know if you want the mission...actually, this DEBUG mission includes a HELO takeoff, SOJ orbit break and the Tanker stuff..

Recluse



Posted on Aug 5, 2001, 4:46 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

RE: Complexity

by

I think you are right - maybe a few logic breakdowns with one too many moving pieces. The mission plays great as is, I just started noticing that some of the "wrap-up" stuff wasn't happening near the end, and started investigating.

I'm at the point with this sim that I still get a kick out of all the things going on around me, aside from MY flight, that when I make my own missions I load them with lots of support flights, AI t/o & landings, etc.... Probably went overboard on this one!

Posted on Aug 5, 2001, 11:41 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Atmosphere

by Recluse

LOL! You and me both... I always like to start a mission with a little airshow flyby by some AI aircraft as they zoom into the break..

Recluse

Posted on Aug 6, 2001, 5:21 AM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Atmosphere

by

I, too, have found that things don't always work quite right. I particularly have trouble with planes, at the end of missions, jumping off the elevator rather than taking the trouble to taxi to the cat.

One of the things I like most about this sim, though, is the way missions can simulate an entire Air Wing taking off, doing its stuff and returning home. I find it's worth putting up with the odd screwy thing for when things do go right.


Posted on Aug 9, 2001, 2:51 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Atmosphere

by

Exactly! The missions still play well, and you get all the fun of listening to the "chatter". I switch on the autopilot and use the "WATCH_FRIENDLIES" a lot during custom missions.

It would be really nice to have a place-able camera that you could assign at design time and switch to durign the mission, just to watch supporting strikes or whatever.

Posted on Aug 11, 2001, 7:02 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Cameras

by Recluse

Well, you CAN use the VIEW action to do this.. i.e. have the VIEW switch to a particular aircraft at a particular time. This feature is a bit finicky and get be difficult to trigger at times, but you can do it

There has been some discussion here on the use of the VIEW feature. If you cant dig it up, post again and we will rehash it :)

I use one of the debug commands DEBUG_NEXT_PLANE bound to a key, so from an outside view (F8, e.g.) I can toggle through ALL the aircraft in the theatre. Sometimes it takes awhile to get to the one I want to see but it is useful for checking that all aircraft you think you have put in a mission are doing their thing...

Posted on Aug 11, 2001, 7:50 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Debug Codes!!

by

Whoa!! Sounds great - just assign that command to a key in the ini file?

Do you have a list of other commands? How did you learn about that one?

RE: The view action, I will do a search. Always wondered what that was...never took the time to play with it!

Posted on Aug 12, 2001, 12:01 AM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Create your own forum at Network54
 Copyright © 1999-2009 Network54. All rights reserved.   Terms of Use   Privacy Statement