Mission Standardization

[Father Cool]

Well we (the 11th) currently have 6 Active Pilots.

Multey
Scooby
Father Cool
Alien
Eshark
Ferret

As we are small we have pretty much run exclusively as Uzi flight up to this point. If you would like to give us extra flights for say bombing runs that would be great though, I believe that Alan uses Pontiac for any extra F-14 flights besides Uzi.

Regards
FC

[Flyco]

Gizzy, by all means go ahead. I would certainly look at any such template, and use it if I found it helpful or easier.

Couple of problems spring to mind.

Firstly, setting up fixed units (SAMs, airfields etc) would limit the geographic scope. I like to find suitable terrains, and sometimes the 'good' and the 'bad' guys need to move locations to allow this.

Secondly, with DCS developing as it is (new aircraft, new capabilities, and, perhaps most notably the Super Carrier), it is going to be a full-time job updating all these templates. I already find it necessary to re-write missions, every couple of months to cater for changes.

However, I am something of a 'crusty Jeremiah', so prove me wrong. It all helps to get people involved in mission building. By the time I publish a mission, I have already flown most of the blue ac several times, and I would really welcome a new, un-known, un-flown mission to join in (Armageddon excepted!!)

[Neil Willis]

I think that is the nub of the matter entirely Flyco. We have an ever moving target.

The idea of fixed SAM sites was not totally thought through, and I agree, we need as much flexibility as possible too.

The whole project needs input from everyone involved in writing missions, so we find some suitable path. Of course, we can move front lines to suit a particular scenario, and that includes deleting, or moving any defence assets to suit. My thought was that we should have a fairly consistent home plate, so pilots can learn proper approach procedures in both VFR and IFR regimes etc. But of course, other priorities can come before that should mission criteria dictate.

What is and what isn’t practical is up to the writers.

[Chris]

@Flyco...

There would be no threats on a template. It is not a mission as such but a miz file to use as a starting point by those who want to write a mission but its purpose is to make it easier for all.

All that is on it is ONE of each type of aircraft, tanker, carrier etc each fully configured in all respects of radio freqs, callsigns, etc.

Someone wants to make a mission, this is what you start with. Delete what you do not want, keep what you do.

Move the tanker to where you want it... move its waypoints... same for carriers.

Pick an aircraft, give it a skin and some waypoints - copy and paste for a flight.

Add whatever threats, mission done. All A/C are configured correctly to the same standard. Callsigns are standardised even down to common boxes and studs..

Its just a simple standardised starting point for mission builders.... I've introduced the system before and it worked fine.... just thought it may be handy... nothing more.... viewtopic.php?f=145&t=3426&start=10#p23685

But no point drawing it up unless as I said before all the head honchos want it ... but if it is going to introduce confusion maybe best to continue as is....

[Father Cool]

I thinknits a cracking idea Chris. You spend half your time if not more setting all that stuff up before you can even start the mission proper. Would be a great help I think.

[Matt]

Have we toyed with the idea of dedicated frequencies for squadrons internal flight comms?

I feel if we had dedicated squadron frequencies it would help stop some cross comms issues we so frequently see.

Anyone got thoughts on this? As always just a thought.

Matt.

[Father Cool]

It would be easy to implement. As soon as you clear your airbase/carrier switch to squadron frequency.

[Mad dog]

All the good aircraft have 2 radios. 1 for wing/flight specific comms and one for mission specific such as traffic calls, AWACS monitoring etc. If we had a freq that was common for all members of a flight/sqn etc. then the only cross comms people would hear would be stuff that all should hear such as traffic calls and bogey dopes. Just an idea, feel free to tell me to go poke

[Matt]

Exactly my point, but if we can standardize those flight frequencies across all of our missions then we remove a area for confusion surely?

[Father Cool]

Thats how it works now Pongo and we use the airfield frequecy for the flight but we sometimes have on occation several flights going from one airbase and thats where confusion comes in.

It works most of the time though to be fair.