I don’t get why the table needs three states though. Dead=true/false and alive=true/false are mutually exclusive states. If one is false then the other is always true. A unit cannot be dead and alive at the same time.
Unit present = true/false → if true then assess Dead = true/false (with true triggering an action)
or
Unit present = true/false → if true then assess Alive = true/false (with false triggering an action)
One of the two should be sufficient shouldn’t it?
You have three inputs possible: not present; dead; alive
You have two outputs possible: true; false
You need to check the presence of the unit, as otherwise the IsAlive function may bork if you put in a nil value. Not certain this short function can be shortened further, and I doubt it should.
Ah, so if there’s no “return not” then one of the conditions may trip “IsAlive()” to nil and that’s like dividing by zero and breaks the code?
For some of this conditional stuff I’m finding it easier to just frankenstein the ME triggers and have those execute individual scripts but that bloats things. I was able to change unit dead condition to group alive condition successfully, I think I was able to do a user flag condition successfully but couldn’t link it to anything useful.
At the moment I want to code a function for part of coalition in zone, with that function going to a start condition for a MOOSE auftrag. But I can’t find an example of such a function anywhere.
For example, that unit dead condition/function I posted earlier would be in an auftrag like this:
:AddConditionStart(UnitDead, "unit name")
Looking for the same idea, just part of coalition in zone instead of UnitDead.
Anyone here know anything about comms for naval surface early warning and control, think AWACS for naval actions?[1] Maybe @Navynuke99 ?
I have some audio that sounds like it might be such (the Gettysburg is under attack from a Surface-to-surface shooter, off the coast of Iran, date unknown) but it is of poor quality.
On the player’s request, (“request picture”) I can compile an audio transmission something like:, “CONTACT [BRA], unknown/hostile”
Example: “contact [bullseye] 0 9 0 degrees, 1 0 0 miles, hostile” [2]
Can embellish with words such as small, large, slow, fast and observed direction of movement.
But, are the terms bogey, hostile used in this context, for calling out boats/ships?
I think the term 'Vampire" is used for an actual hostile missile (may be out of date but I have a way to change this all based on date). From the above mentioned audio the attacker is simply referred to as ‘contact’. I thought I heard the world 'Tango" in there too but not sure.
DCS AWACs does not appear to ‘see’ Bad Guy ships.
Thanks.
JR
[1] I have an AI entity called “CDC” (Combat Direction Center I believe) that [very] loosely provides this service.
[2] the words ‘degrees’ and ‘miles’ are unnecessary IRL, for aviation, but I include it for those not familiar with this stuff.
My 2020-dated brevity manual still lists VAMPIRE as current for hostile anti-ship missile, for what it’s worth.
would that also cover air to surface missiles as well, or just antiship
“Hostile anti-ship missile” is the wording used in the definition so I assume it’s not used on other A/S missiles.
For enemy cruise missiles, both air- and surface-launched, I found QUAIL.
That’s still accurate.
So, honestly your planes (unless you have a submarine lurking somewhere further out who’s able to call in contact reports) are going to be your first notice of enemy ships, either through active sensors or through passive detection of electronic emissions; they’re just going to have farther reach because of the curvature of the Earth and all that.
Any sensor hits will be sorted most likely through the E-2’s Combat Information Center Officer, down to the the Surface Warfare Component Commander for the Battle Group, who may be in the CDC on the carrier (or they could be on the cruiser, depending on situation).
In terms of exact terminology I’m not 100% certain, but I believe there’s a higher chance of telling what kind of ship it is, just from putting all the pieces of the sensor picture together, and the specific class/ type would then be called out.
I hope this helps!
Ground AI improvements? Didn’t see any details on this, maybe “…ground AI improvements” or something. This appears to be what they meant. Been seeing this since the last update or the one prior to it. Lumping this under the category of : Pathfinding changes.
While editing the CAS (close are support - player over watch of an infantry squad here, using an AH-64, AV-8, etc) I noticed DCS output this:
Not having access to the terrain database I was simply determining two points (how is a long story) and setting the group off “Off Road” - direct, not using roads.
Until very recently they would do this; plowing straight ahead directly to the next point, bumping into structures (sometimes unable to find their way around); climbing steep terrain; etc.
In the above you can see DCS has taken the point of least resistance (the yellow line). This is the Afghanistan map, Tora bora operation, in mountainous terrain[1].
Also I’ve noticed that they seem to move a bit more ‘tactical’; the above was a small squad 3-8 infantry) and I observed them moving, stopping, moving - no more constant movement.
[1] The makes it more difficult to follow the grunts you are supporting; since taskings are generated by my own AI and I have no access to the DCS algo to plot a route; etc, this complicates things on my end. You can ‘talk’ to the grunts and have them give you their position which helps. Adding a feature to have them mark their position too but this seem tactically unsound (except during a TIC situation).
It’s not really that difficult to follow them in practice as, a) the foliage isn’t that thick and b) there aren’t a lot of civilians about to confuse you. Both of these relate to performance so, well…
Is flowcharting still a thing? 
I’m getting PTSD flashbacks from Japanese paperwork that’s obsessed with needlessly complex flowcharts for literally everything. And text documents drafted in Excel. Quick someone call my therapist I think I’m losing it.
