Korea '80s Theater - discussion
-
Thx. to the cockpit guys the Su-27 pit has been integrated into the MOD. Now, another true '80s classical fighter is available but now on red side, the counterpart of the F-15 for WPact.
Because R-27s are mostly carried under the fuselage the “drop launch” method will be set for these AAMs. I do not wish to create 4 new weapon DB entries and another things just because sometimes are carried under the wings. I won’t be a bad looking launch effect the drop method, just simply not real.
New skin and drop launch method with R33 + MiG-31.
Su-27 and drop method.
-
Sweet, cant wait for the next release!
-
Do you have a video on the drop launch ? Is it set per weapon, per aircraft or per station on an aircraft ?
-
Yes, I have old videos but they a bit outdated. That time I set 0 0 thrust data in the first two brakepoints then the thrust increased, but this caused a small issue, the missing missile flame. Now I’m using a little different data. The effect is the same but now all missile have engine flame.
R-33 (without missile flame)
AIM-54 (with missile flame)
AIM-7 rail and drop (without missile flame)
The feautre is linked to a weapon, the thrust in dat file determines the launch method. Of course if you launch during a 0 or neg. G turn the missile will look weird but IMHO this is so rare that it worth to model the drop launch method.
-
you may want to add a tweak to further polish flankers.
move ECM lods upward in their individual lod files, not tweak slot positions… then the pods will be placed on right wingtip positoins and cover wingtip pylons. -
What coordinates should be set for ECM pod LODs and where?
-
JanHas trees and the new Su-27. What is important now the trees.
Even only the LOD2 is used (LOD1 also in database) as long as the focus shadow option is turned on, the FPS drop can be quite big (depending on HW config), therefore in database also can be found the LODs of original BMS4 trees. In the released manual will be the description how can be changed the trees if somebody do not like them.
Only problem the multiplayer game. I have no idea what issues can be if different players have different trees. My question is the following. Which tree type be the default in the MOD? The original BMS4 or JanHas stuff?
-
What coordinates should be set for ECM pod LODs and where?
i mean move sorbtsiya pod lod itself ( CT#492) upward and backward in LodEditor. do the tweak for Lod1-3.
In this way, once it’s loaded on flanker, the pod model will overlap-and-mask wingtip pylon, then it looks wright as real thing.
your new flanker has wingtip slot cooridinates changed, you need 611-eagle to help the pod lod tweak. -
News about campaign editing. The OOB of blue side of the 1982 campaign is almost done. Some HP and sq. store changes should be considered, but regardless of my efforts the manual stores setting for AI controlled squadrons still be recommended. The ATO system is too hardcoded to achive what is required for different missions.
The OOB of red side is under construction. Squadrons are done, SAM layers mostly done, the and about 25% ground troop positions have been set.
I got feedback only from Hungarian community regarding trees. I reverted the database, the old trees now are the default, but the Release Notes will explain how can be changed the DB to use JanHas trees. The models are in DB only some values shall be changed with LE6.23, no LOD import/replace is required.
-
Will the next expected update have the Su-27 in the theater? Will the Su-27 Pit be added to the database as well?
-
It have been done with the bue skin and rescaled LOD distances to better FPS.
I wanted to wait the Su-27 pit to be playable the Eurowar campaign from both sides. -
Don’t wait, just release it.
-
-
I found something.
http://www.ellsworth.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-121022-062.pdf
What is your knowledge? Can be installed on A-10s the same ALE-47 cartridges what are used on F-15/F-16 AC?
I’m asking because Falcon is not able to simulate different type of flares. The A-10 has 4-4 gear and 4-4 underwing cartridges. Normally I saw 1x1x8 inch size holes, this means 16x30 = 480 smaller charge in dispenser system. Even if ALE-47 cannot be installed in RL I’m considering counting the half of dispenser qty. of A-10 modeling somehow the difference between the smaller and bigger flares.
-
The new Su-27 in dogfight.
WIP '82s campaign. It has not been finished, but you can see the difference comparing wit original. The OOB os SAMs and ground troops are much more differt. The campaign uses less units that original campaign but the forces are close to FLOT. There are 1st and 2nd wave (at least as placing) and the SAM defense is layered. There are heavy SAMs along the FLOT and battalions have different type of mobile SAMs. Besides the FLOT SAM cover all airbases are defensed by at least one heavy SAM and MANPAD/AAA.
-
Nice 1st pic.
-
I deleted small MG from one of M2 Bradley. Result? They somehow started to use TOW. On ACMI.
I tweaked the FM and guidance values too. Of course the trajectory is not the best but better then nothing, the lofting guidance value may can be smaller.
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/0i5944r6tazjw/TOW-test
Some red vehicles also have TOW type weapon but as I can remember they do not use regardless I delete small MGs.
-
I uploaded another video about a very small TE test. Strange that sometimes some vehicle seems to me invincible somtimes is simply slaughtered. I did not change any ground weapon modeling values I changed only the battalion roster. Only that I can promise that ground war won’t worse than that core DB can support.
-
After series of test I made a decision. So far I found only two functional ATGM in the DB regardless I tried to use the same dat files and modeling values for rest. Because of test result I plan to set generic ATGM for both sides. Because Falcon is not a very detailed RTS as Wargame ALB, IMHO it is better to have at least a generic ATGM than not at all. Some vehicle will has over modeled ATGM, so well modeled. Because the DB is restricted to '80s, this means only from late '60s stuff shall be modeled.
I was able to set such a modeling values for TOW which provides a bit randomness in accuracy and firepower. APC and other stuff mostly do not survive an ATGM attack, their only chance is a miss. (ATGM now has some kind of natural inaccuracy as other AG missiles.) The strongest tanks somtimes is able to survive more than one near miss launch and a hit.
-
Nice find.
I used to test this a lot in AF in the past. I tested ground battles, sea battles, AG, SA and various combination. I was quite sure, HIT chance value in wep. data(vs tracked, wheeled, naval etc.) is key factor here. I said it here on the forum some time ago and someone (perhaps u? : -) told me its rubbish - these values are for 2D war (simdata PK is 3d only in his opinion IIRC). It is not true imo, 2D war computes mostly agregated unit vs unit boardgame (or outside bubble weapon hits…etc). Are there even any weapons interaction computed in 2D battalion vs battalion engagement ? I guess no.
My observation was 50 hit chance - 1 hit, 1 miss…quite regulary…AT missiles are about 30, so 1/3 hits the target (that is why u have different result each time imo). If it was in case ASM vs ship, the missile just exploded in front of target. When I tried to balance enviroment, I have used Hit chance, Fire rate and availability (per falcon round) and blast efficiency(called damage IIRC) . I did not touch simdata (these were encrypted in AF). Although the effect was clearly visible, i can be wrong.randomness in accuracy - did u use your favourite guidance inaccuracy method to achive this? Seems to be more “low level” tweak, than mine, above mentioned tweaks.
I am a fanboy of well modeled and tested generic weapons for enviro-war instead hundreds buggy and useless lumber BTW.
P.S. I really dont want to missguide you…it just brings some funny memories…and I am still curious although inactive in this area