Jump to content

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, hcpookie said:

Fixed the vertical issue.  Statics use simulation = "tankx".  Changed to simulation = "tank".  The old-style "landcontact" lod is now used (instead of hte physx geo lod!) and the "placement" flag is recognized.  That's all it took!  Since these statics really don't need physx they should behave with no problems.  Using a non-physx simulation like "tank" will mean the engine noise isn't heard on this static object... oh well :)   Of possible interest in this pic is the new "underneath" bits that you can see sticking out somewhat... keeps them from floating when placed on slopes like this.

...

 

 

While this approach works, the problem seems to be that BI considers the old simulation as dead code. E.g. it will not be maintained and subsequently changes to the engine might break it. Worst case are random crashes then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

much worse with car vs carX, particularly in the 64 bit version on dedi servers. just worth being aware of the impact of certain design choices pook.

tet and Ive been overhauling all of our ship, tank, airplane and car simulations to fix game-breaking crash frequencies.

running to stand still all over again!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, TeTeT said:

 

 

While this approach works, the problem seems to be that BI considers the old simulation as dead code. E.g. it will not be maintained and subsequently changes to the engine might break it. Worst case are random crashes then.

well fuck me then.

 

I guess I could try adding a turret to a House class... wonder if that would work.  Technically they are "vehicle" class objects.  Hrm.

 

Edit to add - wonder what would happen if I left the Geo the same (all the weight at the bottom) but moved the physx geo mem points to be very close to each other, so that the "bottom" of the physx is only 1m wide.  Hrm again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that worked... the Geo Physx LOD points that touch the ground are only 1m apart now.  Vertical placement still works :)  I'm sure it may fail in some scenarios but "for the most part" it seems to be doing OK

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, TeTeT said:

 

 

While this approach works, the problem seems to be that BI considers the old simulation as dead code. E.g. it will not be maintained and subsequently changes to the engine might break it. Worst case are random crashes then.

Of interest:  Class Static is parent for the Pier Ladder.  simulation = "house".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,
Great models, these! 
Is the Steam Workshop version of this mod up-to-date with this one? If not, how easy is it to make it up-to-date? I have friends I'd like to play with who are not bothered to learn how to install mods manually. 
Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DailyFrankPeter said:

Hi,
Great models, these! 
Is the Steam Workshop version of this mod up-to-date with this one? If not, how easy is it to make it up-to-date? I have friends I'd like to play with who are not bothered to learn how to install mods manually. 
Cheers.

I'd love to have this on Steam Workshop too, but the author has some irrational problem with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, Pookie has mentioned that the new version will be up on Steam when it comes out, IIRC.  He, along with quite a few other mod authors, had issues with the Steam Terms of Use for mod submission.  Those were clarified/changed a while back.

The most up to date version is in the first post of this thread.  4.3 is it.
There looks to be significant updates and improvements using the new JETS sensor systems coming in the next update, so you would probably be best served waiting for it.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Fros7bite said:

I'd love to have this on Steam Workshop too, but the author has some irrational problem with it.

And so what if he doesn't want it on the steam workshop. His mod, he chooses what to do with it. Do not disrespect the modders, they bring out free content for you, they work for free and they waste THEIR free time to satisfy you. This is a warning.

 

If you feel I have been unfair to you PM me and we'll talk.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alex and Ski hit the nail on the head.  If you think concern over author's IP is irrational then you are unaware of the problem and frankly I don't have the time to repeat it.  Especially with a passive-aggressive remark that judges me "irrational".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, DailyFrankPeter said:

Hi,
Great models, these! 
Is the Steam Workshop version of this mod up-to-date with this one? If not, how easy is it to make it up-to-date? I have friends I'd like to play with who are not bothered to learn how to install mods manually. 
Cheers.

 

You can't be bothered to read the STICKY POST on this forum and yet you want me to be bothered with uploading nearly 1GB of content.  Hrm.  You get what you pay for I'm afraid.  I'll be happy to refund you the cost of this mod LOL

 

Edit to add then why don't you take the time to help your friends learn how to manually install mods.  C'mon, show them some love! 

 

To answer your question, 'how easy is it to make it up-to-date' - wait a few weeks as there is a big-huge update coming and you'll just be wasting your time if you d/l it now.  Might as well wait a few weeks  :)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back on topic.

 

I may not be doing something correctly, or the radar array vehicles need to have a manned gunner spot to "use" the radar.  Not sure yet and more testing is warranted.  Therefore the mast-located FCR for the S-300/S-400 family of SAM's is going to be a manned static gun emplacement.

 

EWR systems... working on a way to quantify their contributions to the SAM site effectiveness.  The road I'm going down is to rely on their Alive status to keep the radar range at "full".  If they are killed by a SEAD strike (ARM attack) then the SAM radar range will be severely reduced.  Currently only AI skill is affected and that isn't really the best "limiter". 

 

I'm also working through some other AI calculations such as prioritization of targets so that a higher value target such as a bomber or fighter will be targeted before a cargo plane will be.  I have some ideas on how to interpret some of the config settings (cost, threat, etc) so that the radar sets a higher priority on that target.  Kind of hard to work out and will likely be improved as things progress.  This is a deviation from the current "if I see it I will shoot it" approach.  The new Radar Cross Signature setting (for stealth aircraft) is also going to be a factor in the calculation however that also is going to take some work to get right. 

 

So the AI scripts are getting "smarter" so to speak.  Trying to make them more realistic without turning them into certain-death launchers :)

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Pook, I was just wondering if your SAMs are compatible with Firewill's HARM. I was trying to lock a HARM onto the radar, but I couldn't get a solid lock. Thanks for your help.

 

~Phantom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heads up!   If you want to get you`re hands on some already made assets that incorporates AA-tanks and radar,you should contact the Swedish mod team.

They have some CV-9030 AA-tanks and Amos Mortar tanks that you could try to make Barrage Fire or a system that protects from incoming mortars with the new Bis assets.

If you can make them way better than currently,they could make a for a stand-in for expensive systems Point Defense.Maybe ,a whole new system by just adding a Giraffe Radar Truck.

Then you would have a new system to go at. 

 

 

Thanks for you`re effort. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So to follow up on the vertical placement thing.  It looks like the "trick" of placing all the bottom points of the Physx Geo LOD works.  The PhysX Geo on the AN/FPS-132 is only about 1m across and it seems to work well.  You'll notice the ladders... this is a static AA launcher in the config due to the EWR needs and the ladders are attached.  Possibly a good sniper hide :)

 

ANFPStest2.jpg

 

 

Also added the PRV-13 (NATO: "Odd Pair"), which is an improved version of the PRV-11 altimeter radar

 

PRV13.jpg

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting pic.  Reportedly of a 9M33 (SA-8) proximity explosion.  I expected that a slow-moving helicopter would be a terminal impact, not a proximity engagement.  I might have to chase that link for some more footage! 

 

Now that I have made the PRV-16 I'm trying to find an SA-8 site layout.  I don't think it was ever used as a "standalone" site, but it was intended to provide SHORAD protection for an SA-6 site.  Reading sources it was also used for SA-2 and SA-3 SHORAD site protection.  Just difficult to find real images of sites where it was used.

 

e541cfa33cef9e4510f98df1fb565405.jpg

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Possibly a good sniper hide

til they turn on the radar! i suppose at least it would cook your rations in your pack for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hcpookie said:

Interesting pic.  Reportedly of a 9M33 (SA-8) proximity explosion.  I expected that a slow-moving helicopter would be a terminal impact, not a proximity engagement.  I might have to chase that link for some more footage! 

 

Now that I have made the PRV-16 I'm trying to find an SA-8 site layout.  I don't think it was ever used as a "standalone" site, but it was intended to provide SHORAD protection for an SA-6 site.  Reading sources it was also used for SA-2 and SA-3 SHORAD site protection.  Just difficult to find real images of sites where it was used.

 

The problem is the majority of USSR client states never actually used the multi layered battlefield air defenses as intended by their designers. I doubt you will ever find a case where a full on setup was used. 

 

Most SA-8s were typically used in the high mobility point defense role teamed with Shilkas and occasionally SA-9s for tight IR coverage....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Understood!  That makes perfect sense.  The SAM sites will benefit from SA8 as a SHORAD unit for AAA sites, and some of the legacy SAM sites:  SA2, SA3, possibly SA11.  Yes I'm making an SA-11/17 SAM site to take advantage of the 9S36 "Chair Back" mobile radar system.  The SITE will be static, in that the launchers are ordered to remain in position and not drive away.  A mix of the different SA11/17 launchers (including the newest SA-17-M3) will be included for your Wild Weasel pleasure.  :) 

 

The hurdle I must overcome is the damn SA8 doesn't want to shoot at anything!  I must have overlooked something in the config. 

 

That, and additional sensor refinement, and the update should be ready to release.  Its pushing 1GB now :/

 

edit to add - another good thing is that once I get all the SAM spawn and sensor stuff completed, the PLA SAM/AAA stuff is going to be a very quick update!

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this has been asked before but couldn't see a reply - do you have any plans for rapier ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/13/2017 at 4:40 PM, phantomphan said:

Hey Pook, I was just wondering if your SAMs are compatible with Firewill's HARM. I was trying to lock a HARM onto the radar, but I couldn't get a solid lock. Thanks for your help.

 

~Phantom

 

I use Firewills F-16 a bit too and wondered myself.

 

1. I get no RWR warning or Launch warning 90% of the time when any of your guided missiles or system is tracking me.

 

2. While using Firewills HARM with HTS I can not target your Fire Control Radars or Search Radars.  When I have a site or stand along radar it does not work.  I am able to fire on vanilla AA assets though.

Edited by warbirdguy1
Clarification

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(CHECKS TO SEE IF I STUMBLED INTO FIREWILL'S FORUM TOPIC BY MISTAKE)

 

Nope, this is still the SAM pack topic... perhaps you should ask Firewill about the Firewill mod ;)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Back on topic.

 

My work for the day... BLUFOR getting some radar love.  LOL - RADAR LOVE!   :don9:

 

AN/TPS-59 long range early warning radar.  Note that is WITH physx and as you can see the vertical placement on the volcano slope is working perfectly.  Good times :)   And before anyone calls me out on it, yes I know the vertical height is about 1m too short.  It is still WIP.  This will be the final radar addition I make for this release. 

 

antpy59_TEST.jpg

 

 

IN OTHER NEWS...

 

The new proximity damage values need more work because they are still incredibly over-powered now.  All the SAM's turned into one-shot-one-kill instant death machines and I'm working on these values so they are more realistic.  I fixed S300 - aka SA10 - so now, one shot from SA10 inflicts enough proximity damage for most planes that you're almost guaranteed that 1-2 shots will bring you down.  But not an instant-kill situation.  Slowly working through the other missiles.

 

Leaning more about scripting... the new functions work like a charm.  The scripts load 1x per mission, not 1x per shot.  Meaning all the perceived lag and slowness due to the scripts should all but vanish.  I still have to verify the AAA functions are working. 

 

SAM site placement improvements.  Vehicles all clear the area upon spawn, and the random vehicle launching into the air or exploding on spawn appears to be resolved with a combination of some clever site clearing and vehicle setpos'ing at spawn.  I think the 'splosions were due to vehicles spawning in absolute locations, which was sometimes within terrain features like rocks or trees, and exploding instantly.  This new way seem to work MUCH better now.  I haven't seen a spawn explosion - so far - with the new spawn methodology.

 

Using only Jets DLC values, the new ARM configs work out to about 20km.  Debating on whether to keep the BVR ARM scripts in the mod at this point.

 

New early-warning posts (or listening posts if you prefer) are working and will provide the SIDE with updates on aircraft in the area.  As this may be used to scramble GCI and/or make SAM's take notice of you, these will possibly be considered high value targets.

 

ECM script is working very well, perhaps too well... I can fly with impunity through a map unless there is a missile with Home-On-Jam capability like NASAMS, S-300, S-400, PAC-2, etc.  Those are really scary :)  I'm going to adjust the missile burn-through capability I've simulated so that the closer they get, the more likely they will overcome the jamming.  That makes sense to me, although getting RL information about the capabilities of these highly classified systems is impossible.  So these adjustments are best-guesses on my part based on online reports and after-action assessments.  Who knows... the modern RL jammers may be this capable! 

 

 

I don't want to jinx it but I am going to AIM for an August-early September release.  I'm taking my time to ensure all those little issues get addressed, since it has been nearly a year since the last release!  :)

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×