Canadair

...and which takes way, the one in types.ini or the one in the groundobject used, should the types.ini entry poits to a specific one?

Carrier stations along the way; and only land assets as soviet big bombers, and p-3

Thanks Canadian Friend! I am half-canadian myself... anyway, let me know, I am starting to work on the ini I think thic could be a test-bed and a feasibilty-test for a major GIUK campaign

I was thinking DBS, but that would require copying the terraina and doing everything from scratch; and I would like a 1:1 terrain for long range engagements tests

This is the project: Friendly convoys defined as ground units in the campaign data, with cargo ships and tankers defined as tanks. they would follow the movement routes only to be engaged by submerged subs folllowing routes in a movement.ini CAS would be triggered, and P-3 and S-3 (from a carrier station) would be launched from one side, and long range bomber from the other; loadout [attack] would have to be changed for the proper anti ship and anti sub missiles, we have plenty of operational and tested cruise missiles antiship for badgers and blinders. Fixed convoy and carrier stations (carrier made stationaty with modifications at the movement enrty in data.ini, could be placed targeted to spice up the fight with strike mission (again with proper loadout suitable for ship-only targets.) ship targets can be made intersting to the campaign system by raising the target value entry in the types.ini oh and ships maxvisibility must be increased,I increased up to 40000 in the data.ini, but probably even more to benefit of the long range of anti-ship missiles. aircraft visabiliy increased to allow B VR shots at the bomber formations. Might require a single install, or the creation of dedicated ship used as tanks, (running the risk of having them show up in single -mission random generated CAS mission, but who careS) And yes GIUK is no feasible And yes , I can see Bears and Backfires, and kiev and kirov. But not yet, now I need the terrain. just water; just big, a patch of land with an airfiled in a corner and another one at the other corner,. no types.ini or targets.ini, entry excpet thoe required for the airports. I will do the rest

Not only that; but with a sea-moslty terrain we can identify the ships as tanks, therefore moving them in the map, according to movement ini; they could be defined as groud untis in campaign ini, and perhaps engage enemy similar ground-ship units. and CAS mission, (now anti-ship) would be triggered agaist them. eh eh picture a group of submerged november attacking a convoy with the air cover of S-3b just one idea. IT is feasible with current means please someone make the terrain, please!

By using targets.ini and terrain.ini properly it is possible to have a campaign similar to convoy battles in the atlantic. I tested already ona smaller scale this concept. It is possible to have massive strike of bombers against convoys and carrier groups, perhaps with S-3B (that badly need a purpose, attacking subs) request. Could someone make a simple BIG terrain, only water, perhaps some patches of land east and west, nothing fancy, just room enough for two airfields, for P-3 on one side (yes sub hunting, maybe) and soviet bombers on the other. Just nothing fancy. Just to further test the idea. I really can't spare time enough to learn terrai editor. I tried. Maybe the campaign to be released in it could be an inspiration to move forward and do a GIUK gap campaign. .... any takers, please?

Yes, that works too; with the mod thoguh it gets evem tougher; in campaing might work the following entry in campaign data inis. under the force id: startairdefenselevel=3

Thx for the explanations JSF. I had noticed already and used the Naval_base entry and used in some campaigns; also MISC could work for ship, but naval_base is more direct, since MISC wil necessarily include stuff other than ships. Intesresting that .lod extension is not required in this case. A little case of "forgiveness" from the demanding SFP1'inis!

I made a mod a while ago that makes AAA somewhat more dangerous; http://forum.combatace.com/index.php?autom...p;showfile=4856 Give it a try; make sure you read the readme file and feel free to experiment more; I get hit much more by AAAwith this, but please do experiment

yeah seems that the engine does not care; OTH very strange; how many cockpit added to planes and planes not usable because of the missing .ini extension in the data; the game is indeed quite picky with extension and in general! the question is: let's bomb a docked ship in cuba, and see what happens.. I'll write it on the list of SFP1 experiments to be done hanging at the monitor's side..

I meant are useless, in terms that I was loking for a way to implement anti-ship in campaign fror a "Red Storm Rising" project. And I already faced SAM-launghing ships..sigh

This comes form the types of cuba latest version. first question. Is there a reason why soviet cargo and wrship are embedded in the terrain instead of using the groundobjects? Second question: [TargetType079] Name=Freighter2 FullName=Russian Freighter ModelName=shipcargo2.LOD TargetType=NAVAL_BASE ActiveYear=0 TargetValue=700 UseGroundObject=FALSE DamagePoint=100.0 ArmorValue=400.0 ArmorType=0 RepairRate=0 StartDetectChance=80 StartIdentifiedChance=80 IncreaseDetectChanceKey=0 MaxVisibleDist=10000.0 DamagedModel= DestroyedEffect=LargeTallStructureCollapse DestroyedModel=shipcargo2_w <------------------------------- SecondaryEffect=ShipDestroyedEffect SecondaryChance=100 in the highlited line is missing the extension .lod . The destroyed model (shipcargo2_W) is included obviously in the terrrain folder. Is it a mistake or a typo? I don't think so, since in this enrty, which is a standard entry from the standard unmodded desert types we read: [TargetType002] Name=barrack2 FullName=Barrack ModelName=barrack2.lod TargetType=MISC ActiveYear=0 TargetValue=20 UseGroundObject=FALSE DamagePoint=10.0 ArmorValue=0.0 ArmorType=0 RepairRate=0.150 StartDetectChance=0 StartIdentifiedChance=0 IncreaseDetectChanceKey=0 MaxVisibleDist=8000.0 DamagedModel= DestroyedEffect=MediumShortStructureCollapse DestroyedModel=barrack2_destroyed <----------- AGAIN .lod is missing SecondaryChance=25 SecondaryEffect=SmallExplosionEffect Now being this barrack a standard object, is it a mistake, (the missing of .lod) of ALL the types.ini written so far, (according to the standard one) or is it a proper entry, i.e. extension .lod is not needed in the destroyed model line? I know is it easy to test bombing and targeting a barrack, but still, I am curious.. Thanks

With all due respect single-mission anti-ship are useless. The only way to implement in campaign is create target area and populate with ships(assigned either as misc or naval_base targets). So far this has been observed. The only big problem is plane loadout, because the campaign system will use obvioulsy the strike loadout instead of the anti-ship loadout. For planes using guided missiles not a big deal, although you would like A-6 to use harpoons agians ship and bombs agians other things. For big soviet bomber should be no problem, since the asm (modelled either as CGR, or EOGR, or maybe ARM can attack groubd targets too), although each campaign with naval and ground targets might turn into a cruise missile party

Ok. One thing is anti-ship in campaign one thinf is random-mission In campaign, I say again, should a squadron be tasked 100 anti ship, campaign CTD in the standard desert-campaign, korea, madagascar, lybia. I will try more but I think it is safe to say that there are NO nti-ship mission in campaign at the current patchin level. Any other idea? because I hope to be wrong

Thx Wrench, for answer I am talking about SF and I was mentioning the Burning sand campaign; unmodded otherwise but for a squadron for anti-ship 100, it CTD immediatley after the little window at campaing begining where you type the save file name. And I do get strike generated on convoy ststions, which are obviously, STRIKE missions at stationary ship groups, used as ground targets. I will try with other terrains. any idea for the targeting questions?

Wait Wait; do you get Antiship mission in campaigns? If I have a squadron tasked 100 anti ship, I always get CTD; tested in DBS-72 campaign, and lybia redone by wrench , and madagascar. Oh and desert, standard burning sand

I guess the system does not generate them in campaign, just like the armed recon mission. But should a squadron is tasked with anti-ship in its entry in campaign data.ini, and it actually gets an anti-ship mission, then the campaign CTD at briefing screen. In the least this is what I obesrved, and narrowed, and unlike the armed_recon missions which are ignored by the campaign engine? Any other idea? Of course "shipping stations" in campaign can be setup in targets terrain.ini, like one or more ships. but in this case only the ship tasked as primary objective is targetable, and not the whole convoy, again what I observed. Is there a way to make them targetable, such as the trucks in the scenary? Actually the apparent inabiliy to track at leisure in SFP1, other that primary and AAA, and SAM launchers and radar and occasional trucks spoils some fun with guided weapons any other idea or comments? for sure a "free" targeting would be a good add-on, such as "E" or "T" key scanning ALL the targets available and visable. Comments

Controcorrente Dio ci scampi dalle frecce; Ne conosco molte e sono brutta gente

Intersting because right yesterday I was trying to seup a campaing mig&Su VS Mig, as in etiopia-eritrea conflict it was actually madagascar vs sooviet navy I succeded in having them display the proper weapon by using a mock friendly force in the campaign ini, and keeping the mig-29 as madagascar in the campaign squadron entry. you need a friendly and enemy for the campaign, but weapons are divided in some friendly and enemy category. I think (i say again, I think) that if a nation is degigned as enemy in the nations.ini, it will lose weapons in campaign if used as friendly force in the campaign.ini.

I hope it is not to late to join the UP the IRONS scream. Who knew so many Eddie's discpiles here!

Thx for the explanations; I had not yet figured out that EOGBs could not go on multiple racks. One never finishe learning in SFP!1 universe. Thx to FC for the explanations about the GBU-40 which makes a lot of sense. Still, my question was about the guidance,, which again is a simple edit with wpn editor. GPS homing EOGR missile, without the tv camera screen that is..

I hate to ask, I know nothing, and it is the simplest of edits. But aren't they supposed to be GPS guided? hmhm and another question,, which version of the sunburn goues under the belly of the su-27? Thanks for the weapons thoguh Fastcargo, briliant! When a a Jsow?

I am a ctastrophe; but must be just me

Secondo me ci vorebbe un terreno tutto nuovo, le texture ci sono tutte.