Leaderboard

@corbu1Thanks! V2.0 is up see first post I'm also running a small server to showcase the pack Required mods are v2.0 of my asset pack, the AH-6j and UH-60L Available aircraft are: all the default helos + AH-6j and the UH-60L, the CE II and the yak-52. No weapons, no jets

This little package contains a Bell Longranger L3 type helicopter model with some liveries. This is only AI and has only some basic animations, PBR textures and no damage model or weapons. It also has some model and texture fixes to be made, but it takes forever and so I thought I might as well release it before waiting another 6 months...I made this for myself to gain/improve some skills in 3D modelling, texturing and lua scripting, and because I like to get more civil Helicopter OPs into DCS. Tested with DCS 2.7.8. UPDATES: current version: 0.1 - liveries pack provided by @Urbi (not available anymore) - liveries pack provided by @crazyeddie (separate link see "ADDONS") DOWNLOAD: https://www.dropbox.com/s/7yt7rbqgol495ei/Bell_206-L3 AI.zip?dl=0 INSTALL: Unzip the package. 1. Copy the content of "Liveries" into your "Saved Games/DCS/Liveries" folder. 2. Copy the content of "tech" into your "Saved Games/DCS/Mods/tech" folder The package includes a basic livery template. ADDONS: - @crazyeddie provides a beautiful new liveries package, download here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/n82g1x6485p3hjg/crazyeddies_Bell 206 Liveries.zip?dl=0 CREDITS: This mod was inspired through the work from Upuat, EightBall, Nibbylot and Damientrix. I used some snippets of lua-scripts from each of these authors and modified them for this project, as I did prior to my HH-60 mod. The 3D model of the helicopter was downloaded from GrabCad and it is allowed to be used for royalty free usage and distribution. The author of the original CAD model is Mr. John Fall, and I am grateful he allows this model to be used for free and appreciate his beautiful CAD work. I made a lot of changes to the original model though, and had to import it into my 3D environment with a number of tedious conversions. Finally, thanks to Urbi and Crazyeddie who reworked textures and provided additional (and enhanced) liveries. Anyway, I hope you like it. Have CIVIL fun!

Please keep the discussion on DCS World, you may use your real world experiences in the explanations of your issues, but we are not modelling other games, we are modelling real life the best we can. While not everything is perfect, we are striving to do so, will it happen over night? No, will it happen in two weeks? No, but we are working as hard as we can to build the best flight and combat simulation we can. If you see issues, please make proper bug reports with evidence if you want to help change things, if you are just burned out there is nothing wrong with taking a break. We plan on being here a very long time. Thanks.

1. CIVILIAN ASSETS PACK - NAUTICAL v2.1 DOWNLOAD v2.1 Content, installation, credits, etc: README.pdf If you have downloaded v2.0, it appears the armed trawler isn't engaging targets. Download this lua, place it in "\Civilian Assets Pack - Navy v2.0\Database\CAP Ships" and overwrite. for those who wish, here is the "unpimped" version of the ships (no girls in bikini). Grab the edm files, drop them in the mod "Shapes" folder and overwrite. CrazyEddie made 6 additional liveries for the J.R. More Tug, be sure to check them out! 2. DCS: COMBINED FARMS Link to thread 3. CIVILIAN ASSETS PACK - VEHICLES V1.0 DOWNLOAD v1.0 20 vehicles (including variants) and 1 static object (shown in the picture above). Goes in the ...\Saved Games\DCS\Mods\tech folder. In the mission editor the vehicles can be found under ground units --> civilian vehicle --> CAP - "..." A showcase mission with all the vehicles is included. DEMO mission demonstrating the ability to turn the lightbar on and off with the spacebar: CAP VEHICLES - Lights Toggle Spacebar Addtional liveries by CrazyEddie: DOWNLOAD Many thanks to @tobi for the .edm exporter for Blender ALL VEHICLES ARE COMPATIBLE WITH COMBINED ARMS Some vehicles have animated drivers, others don't Some vehicles have destroyed models, others don't Some vehicles have LODs, others don't No rhyme nor reason to it, just depends on how lazy I was that particular day...Harmonisation is planned for a future update. Customisable lightbar reflectiveness/brightness through liveries (only for the police cars at this time): CUSTOMISATION FOR SOME VEHICLES: Extra liveries by CrazyEddie (separate download) PICTURES: And more --------------------------------------- Old post (these vehicles will be upgraded soon...or later...):

Kiowa over South Atlantica - WIP

Entitled privilege. You don't understand it because you're the default that is represented. I'm a woman, a real world pilot and have been flying planes and simulators before you were born and there have been many on here vocal (and get harassed and talked down to like you've just done) and silent. Grow a little empathy and realise there are other people out there. And keep your Elite Dangerous false equivalency out of DCS. Frontier ruined that game. DCS isn't the place for toxicity, whether the masculine kind or just the arrogant, dismissive kind. Might have something to do with your sexist attitudes and probably immature 'banter' than anything else...

This one:

I have...then I forgot For a next update I guess

The AGM-154A bombs have been released for a very long time since then in the list of aircraft systems they are painted green as if they are ready, but this is not so... At the moment, the CNTL settings page is still blocked, because of this it is not possible to edit the canister opening height parameter, Is it possible to fix this in the next patch? Or fix its status from green to blue so this system is not ready. PS: Оn the hornet, changing opening height was available from the very beginning. 154.trk

@TOViper I think I ran into this issue last night. It happened after I powered my mavericks down after boresighting and the powered them back up again. During boresighting they were about as sharp as would be expected, and then after the power down, 20min transit and then powering back up the maverick view was all blurry. No track unfortunately as I was online but Ill try and repro in singly player today.

thank you for your devotion and dedication to the ww2 warbirds Zach. ppl like you...aka...the community is what makes or breaks a game. when devs ears go deaf...game dies. pls keep up the indiana jonesing for more buried or forgotten treasures sir.

Each time I take a look in this thread, I‘m speechless……

Summary: DCS World is creating invalid ballistics objects which are not cleaned up. These ballistics objects persist until mission restart and have a significant impact on the performance of Multiplayer servers, measured in "Server FPS" or the number of simulation frames per second that the server is processing. Background: Ballistics objects are spawned whenever a rapid fire weapon starts firing. They may also be spawned when cluster munitions are dispensed but I have been unable to confirm that. Ballistics Objects tend to have an impact on Server FPS which depends on the power of the server, the number of objects and, apparently, the number of connected clients. This is because the server has to spend time calculating the trajectories and other properties (Collisions etc.) of these ballistic objects. Here is an example of Ballistics Objects being spawned when rapid-fire weapons fire. You can see that the number of Ballistics objects in the mission spike when a shooting event starts and the resulting impact on server FPS. You can also see that the number drops back to 0 as the ballistics objects expire. (Note: The below graphs come from a liberation mission running with only AI running on a home-server) Bug: There are times, however, when Ballistics objects increase without an associated shooting event (Or any other event that I can find). You can also see that after this jump the objects are not cleaned up and the number of ballistics objects in-mission steadily accumulates. If we look at these objects we can see that they are invalid and they are always identical aside from the main ID. Their type is all 0, their coordinates are all 0 and the lat/lon is always at map origin, the country is 99 which is not in the country enum. Clearly these are not something that should exist. "33584385": { "Pitch": 0, "Type": { "level3": 0, "level1": 0, "level4": 0, "level2": 0 }, "Country": 99, "Coalition": "Enemies", "Flags": { "Jamming": false, "IRJamming": false, "Born": false, "Static": false, "Invisible": false, "Human": false, "AI_ON": true, "RadarActive": false }, "Name": "", "Position": { "y": 0, "x": 0, "z": 0 }, "Heading": 6.2831854820251, "LatLongAlt": { "Long": 34.265515188456, "Lat": 45.129497060329, "Alt": 0 }, "CoalitionID": 0, "Bank": 0 } I have also noticed that these invalid objects tend to (but not always) spawn 76 objects at a time as evidenced below (Note: This graph is from a Hoggit Georgia At War session). The trackfile for this Liberation mission can be found in the attached `liberation-mission.trk` which is tiny because, I assume, there is only AI. Impact: The accumulation of these Ballistics Objects has a deleterious impact on the Hoggit multiplayer servers (And potentially others, but Hoggit is what I was analysing) due to the fact that the server still has to assign time to process them even though they are doing nothing. Here is a graph of a typical mission on Hoggit Georgia At War. You can see that the server FPS steadily decreases as the number of Ballistics objects increases. I could find no other metrics that shows such a correlation. You can also see that the number of players also has an impact on the server FPS in that the FPS recovers very slightly as player count drops at the end. I am not sure if the number of players amplifies the impact of the ballistics objects but my assumption is yes because on a server with very few players the impact is not as great. (Note: The below graphs come from the Hoggit "Georgia At War" server) As well as a corresponding increase in CPU usage: You can see here that the number of invalid Ballistics objects is in the thousands. However I have also observed that this depends on which of the two missions that make up "Georgia At War" is running (P1 or P2). In one mission the Invalid ballistics objects consistently numbers in the hundreds and one in the thousands. However even just a few hundred ballistics objects has a massive impact as well. I have observed this behaviour across about 20 different mission sessions. Track files for some GAW sessions with this ballistic object accumulation can be found here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1-_Ae-h6dl5s2k9v1FWwfkME0OBOflbWt (Size warning. 300-400MB) Request: Eagle Dynamics to find the root cause for these invalid ballistics objects being spawned and fix it. liberation-mission.trk

There seems to be some misconceptions about memory on this thread that's been repeated in other threads. Samsung bdie is not some magic sauce. Samsung B die and Micron Rev E at same speed same latency will have same performance (within margin of error). The beauty of Bdie is its overclocking headroom. For example I wa able to take my 3200 CL12 bdie to 4000 (15-16-16-35). The use case for Bdie is that you can take inexpensive kit of Bdie, overclock it to 3600 then take the rest of that bdie headroom and focus it on latency. If you're not overclocking, B die is a waste of money but cause you can get the same results with other ram (if they can hit same timings/speed) as you can with Bdie and overclocking. Honestly, Bdie is arguable wasted on a ryzen system unless you do manual tuning and not just throwing on XMP. This will be affected by board topology and silicon lottery on the memory controller. You can achieve the same results with a native 3600 CL14 kit. X3D is a bit of a wildcard is that it's v-cash allows it to basically bypass memory bottleneck. So that ram isn't as cruicial as it is with a non 3D chip because vcash essentially trumps it. That being said, I wouldn't just run potato Ram just because you have an X3D.

Ugh, thats not really true. It never exceeded the numbers of PFMs, PFS or MF in any of the mentioned countries during 1967 war, War of attrition or 1973 war. Iraq for example received only 20 MiG-21FLs in 1966. In 1967 they already received 36 brand new PFMs and in 1971 further 20 MFs. Not to mention some 48 MiG-21bis delivered between 1979 and 1983. I think Iraq had even more Hawker Hunters than MiG-21FLs. That wouldn't be true for Egypt either, especially since immediately after 1967 war, Soviet Union decided to rapidly send 65 of their PFS to restore some of the Egyptian Air Force capabilities, which was virtually annihilated. Finally, Syrian Ordre de bataille as of October 1973, indicates that most common variant were PFMs and MFs. Note: all the above numbers are rounded for the purposes of quick search and based on slightly dated, but still likely some of the most accurate, publications: - Arab MiGs. Volume 5: October 1973 War, Part 1, - Iraqi Fighters: 1953-2003: Camouflage & Markings Voila FLs are easy to distinguish as they had no SRO antennas. Poland kept 21PF in service until 1989. And they were retrofitted with GP-9 as picture below shows: Polish PFs were modernized since the time of their arrival in 1964 / 1965, by replacement of RP-21 blocks with RP-21M, installation of SBKO-E blocks for identification control and couple other things like installation of the hook under the airframe to attach the mentioned GP-9 pod.

I'd like to propose a new menu for wingman coordination. I think most people would like something faster and more powerful than the current F10 menu. I propose a popup window where we can set options for wingmen similar to what is available in the mission editor for tasking: null The above image is a rough concept and in no way inclusive of everything needed for this menu, but I think it gets the idea across. Instead of scrolling through layers to find the right command and issuing commands one at a time, everything is displayed at once. Options are drop down format, click the down arrow icon next to an option to change it. Then of course there are checkboxes for things that need no input, like join formation, or attack target. I think there is also room for new functions like requesting wingman fuel and weapons states. While I do have a drop down for target select, I don't think this would work very well in a crowded mission, so I think this option should also be available on the F10 map. If something appears on the F10 map, you can click it and assign a wingman or your entire flight to attack it. This may require new F10 map options however. For example in a mission where the F10 map is intended to be disabled, we could represent potential targets in a ring around the player position instead of at their true locations, or perhaps the units will only be displayed at their true locations if they are detected (sort of like Fog of War).

This is incredible. Thank you so much. Have you ever considered any floating (head and shoulders above water and 'hot' on FLIR) civilians that we could do a SAR rescue with?

Speed brakes (from my understanding) are not meant to slow down from Mach 1, but to prevent speed build up in a dive (CCIP bombing) or manage speed in a landing pattern.

ED has added the files to the repo for the next patch update.

ED has added the files to the repo for inclusion in the next patch update.

I've read all comments and retested.please check these tracks. two times I was able to destroy the target, even that time bomb fell behind the target. Mission had same wind as above that I shared. I used to hit 7K a10 shots easly. something has changed for sure. a10 20K opposite-shot-to-tgt.trk a10 20K perpendicular-shot-to-tgt.trk f18 +400IAS 20K opposite-shot-to-tgt.trk f18 +400IAS 20K perpendicular-shot-to-tgt.trk

I really hate this off topic. But let me put it that way. In case the performance drop once will be carried out to stable branch, if ED cant eliminate the reasons here in open beta, then I would consider DCS being split in two branches rather useless. If the performance drop stays in OB only, this would be the perfect proof that the concept of stable+beta is made use to full extent. Lets wait and see what happens over time to the stable version. In the meantime people in OB are the ones who feed the developers with testing data.

Вы ошибаетесь. Связь имеется, и она "железная". Ровно, как и в Ми-8 (т, МТ, МТВхх...). Напомню еще разок)) см.вложение.КОррекция+РОШ+РРУДы.pdf

this plane is getting more and more interesting. it will be in "must buy" list

I’d agree, it’s very good footage, but I have no idea how it “has all the answers we need”?

So much gross mis-information and assumptions about programming in this post.

Thank you ED. I am very happy to be able to see the tail rotor in its proper pitches. Move it on the ground or see the rotor disk flatten or thicken in flight depending on pitch. It is very cool. However, I have absolutely no idea what that patch note was about a graphical update to the oil cooler fan? Anyone noticed a difference? The center looks a bit more detailed to me but that’s it

Have recorded a track from the Syria A10C free flight and run through both drivers: - 526.98 Average appCPU 6.64ms Average appGPU 11.21ms 512.95 Average appCPU 7.16ms Average appGPU 11.41ms Both with head held still staring through the hud, the track was recorded on the 526.98 driver, not sure if that could contribute to the different appCPU numbers? The track comprised of around 2700 data points and included low level city flying, rolling hills, trees and some light clouds. edit: I am seeing the same reduction in appCPU with the newer driver, I don't see any appGPU change though. Could it be linked to settings? Did you have any terrain shadows on for your tests? I didn't.

I'd like to have it as a Campaign actually. The disk space is no problem for me - we're talking DCS after all, so gigabyte here and there... what is it? I'd also rather not to mess with the original files, so I prefer using Saved Games (user files). BTW: For a short while I was considering doing the voice-over in pseudo-Russian accent... something like this: I really didn't get too far with it though. But I could do more if it makes any sense.

Wow! It looks gorgeous, great job Rato!

Let me elaborate on my answer If the tanker lands within 20 minutes, then there's something wrong with the basic setup, and Zyll's video should help solving that. Once that's solved, the tanker should be able to stay on station for ~4 hours. After that, the tanker must land, refuel and resume its mission. But as far as I know, the "LandReFuAr" waypoint responsible for that only works with land bases, and not with naval units. Theoretically, you can do some clever tricks with triggers and scripts, by spawning a new tanker once the dry one lands. But since this approach already involves scripting, I suggested to use Moose, as it takes over the whole routine of creating and managing the tanker. TL;DR Once you watch Zyll's video and solve whatever is wrong with the initial setup, you'll likely won't need the rest of this post. Now for the scripting. It could be very confusing, indeed! But it becomes really simple once you understand how the scripts work in DCS. In my mission there are two units: * A carrier group named "HST", * And a dummy S-3B Tanker placed anywhere on the map and named "Arco". Then there are two triggers: * The first one simply loads the main Moose library. * The second one executes the script that talks to Moose and turns that dummy S-3B into the actual tanker attached to our carrier. As evident from their names, both triggers run on the mission start: The script itself: ArcoHST=RECOVERYTANKER:New(UNIT:FindByName("HST"), "Arco") -- this finds our dummy S-3B named 'Arco', and attaches it to our carrier group named 'HST' ArcoHST:SetCallsign(2) -- number of the desired callsign from the dropdown menu in the Mission Editor, #2 is Arco ArcoHST:SetTACAN(43, "ARC") -- tanker's tacan ArcoHST:SetRadio(343) -- tanker's radio frequency ArcoHST:SetTakeoffAir() -- the tanker will be spawned in air ArcoHST:Start() -- actually spawns the tanker There are additional arguments and commands described in the manual. They're currently working on the new model: As for the skins, I'm using this pack: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3307156/

Thing is, TACAN on US combat jets from 60s and in some case early 70s often had their air to air mode marked as A/A only like on F1, no differentiating between Receive only and T/R but was functioning like the latter, as this can be observed in flight manuals from that period. Given that a rotating antenna was required for bearing information and wasn't widely available at all back then, the primary usage of A/A was for ranging-only TACAN yardstick. Hence i mentioned in original post that ranging was more of a primitive function in this mode. It would be counter-productive if its modelled the other way around. Not true, most (if not all) TACAN-equipped module (i don't own jf-17/c-101/mb339 so cannot tell these 3) can perform fighter-to-fighter TACAN yardstick just fine, while F1 can't. It's little bit finicky for F/A-18 since more than half of its channels have been occupied by MIDS but the rest are doing well. AI tanker is another touchy subject let's just ignore this for now. They're operating on non-A/A mode and behave like an airborne mobile ground station. For whatever reason F1 can receive the bearing in A/A, but not in any other jets.

I forgot that arguing with only virtual pilots that always know better is a mute.. just take it and learn. IL2 as a better flight and turbulence feeling .. that is a given period. To me a as flight simulator the flight comes first not the weapons.. I wont give up on DCS but listen to this ,, DCS is behind IL2 and FS2020 there is no arguments in flight and the FM performances are not in question here.. . just take it .. So we all agree that for now DCS is a Weapons system "Simulator" and for example IL2 and FS2020 enter in the Flight Simulator category and combat.. No leaving .. lower your ego.. LOL.. I am sorry to break your dream about DCS and I hope that it is just for a short time.... but if no one open their mouth nothing will be made to change that.. I repeat.. DCS atmospheric physics are the worse quite similar to War of Thunders and I am not joking. Ad the last thing I will say is If you want to learn or play with weapons.. radars systems DCS is the best you can have on your PC right now.. there is no doubt.. and it is good and getting better ... now to fly... get into IL2.. no button to press just key biddings but the flight feeling is far better and for the cruising and navigations flight FS2020.. we should all basically agree and ask for the next 2 weeks of update on DCS atmospheric and not necessary a rainbow.... But make no mistake I Iove DCS since Lockon but I love to have the flight on Il2 and FS2020 to fulfill the flight needs.. ( even if they have as well some issues) It's great that we have Virtual pilots now and we are simmers as well so share the passion.. so lets push the Dev I will try again IL2 Blitz I think it has the most complete effects of all.. VR is coming into it so I hope for good things for us all. But I see always guys here talking of Il2 and flying.. just remember that.. for now we are all on the same boat and many many of us have those 3 sims and switch depending the mood .. but next time when you fly IL2 think about it.. feel it. It is not about aircraft FM..

But do you like movies about Gladiators?

Я почему спрашиваю,купил данную игру лет пять назад,накупил кучу модулей ,карт,а играть так и не могу,ибо нету геймплея! Чорт подери! Мисси,кампании,это затычки которые меня абсолютно не устраивают,он-лайн также не мое,по разным причинам.Почему в БзС малобюджетном есть прекрасная вещь как Карьера,а здесь со всеми плюшками и совершенностями не смогли сделать подобное в начале проекта? Сколько еще ждать? Дайте ответ пожалуйста,когда я смогу играть в эту игру,вы углубились во всякие системы подсистемы,а простенькой аля Карьеры так и не сделали,уверен многим она нужна,сесть на час-два полетать, пожить виртуальным пилотом!

Would be nice if it was implemented. A lot of this info is available already in DCS and can be found on the SA page, so it's a matter of populating this page with the data, instead of the static values.

IRL the F/A-18 has more modern avionics, and the F-15E generally has better performance overall. In DCS The Razbam DCS F-15E will likely be simulated much better than the DCS F/A-18C. The F-15E will have better: A/A Radar simulation (simulates range and doppler space) SAR simulation RWR simulation (example: AV-8 has better simulated ALR-67 than the F/A-18C) The DCS F/A-18C gets a lot of the nuanced details wrong (ex MSI logic, RWR logic, Radar GMT/MAP, TPOD targeting, etc.). I would go with the F-15E, personally.

Eurofighter is well underway; and the F-4 is nearing completion. Temporary silence does not imply anything regarding development.

This aged surprisingly not well

Well, flying low and slow above Ukraine these days might not be the safest option to fly in a Mi-8....

ALL MY MOD links have been removed due to Digital Piracy. Regards , Admiral189

A new mod that makes FC3 aircraft clickable is in development by RedK0d. All FC3 aircraft and Su-25T are partially clickable (limited to avionics implemented originally by ED). Mod's repository on github: https://github.com/RedK0d/CLICKABLE-FC3 edit - new download location: https://redk0d.gumroad.com/l/fvkodo I'm putting it here so more people are aware of this mod. I am not the author of this mod! If you want to contact the author, there is an official discord channel (link on github).

https://download.authentikit.org/

в итоге рекомендация одна: для исключения раздражения игрока (т.е. себя) при управлении вертолетом в районе цели необходимо выполнить действие, которое переводит САУ в канале направления в режим согласования. Как Вы это предпочитаете сделать - Ваше решение. Либо отключением САУ в канале направления, либо активацией нажатия (и удержания) надпедальников, которые переводят канал направления в режим согнласования. Способ управления надпедальниками выберите тот, что Вам ближе

^ Although I'd absolutely love to have a more up-to-date and accurately modelled -21 as many others here, I have to ask - seriously, what world do some of you guys live in and what do you expect? Every PC game / addon / any software product for that matter has a fixed, practical shelf-life after which support either ends completely or is limited to making sure the product only launches at all. The fact that it's still sold doesn't change anything. It's no different to Win-XP and Win-7 dedicated programs that one can still legally buy, even though they're not supopsed to be used anymore. In DCS universe ex-Belsimtek modules are a good example as well, cause no matter what NineLine and BigNewy say (or are allowed to say), in practical terms they're expensive abandonware nowadays. At some point, unless developer offers a paid overhaul (like for A-10C of Ka-50), updating and bugfixing becomes not financially viable. So yeah, if M3 say they will throw in some last free tweaks for the MiG after F4U is done, I don't realistically expect anything more.

To the OP: i know a said the AI always jinked in a single plane which made it very easy to read and thus anticipate and compensate properly, so i wanted to record a short demo on how it can be done. However, someone must have eavesdropped on our conversation, and the latest patch/s seems to have changed that behavior. So now, they are somewhat harder to shoot down, with tendency to jink in more erratic manner. I apologize for the extremely poor handling of the plane in the 2nd hop. I hadn't touched a stick in over 3 weeks and i only had 10ish minutes to record and fly before having to leave the house. The result was so poor, i completely lost feel for my energy state and nearly blacked out. I had to record a 3rd fight as a result, after i got back home. This one was more articulate, though still not to my satisfaction. I don't have time to play DCS any more this weekend, so i hope this 15ish minutes help illustrate what i was trying to say. Cheers, happy weekend and safe flying:

Its very apparent that there are several people here, sharing mods privately. That's their right. But when they come in here and show off pics and taunt the public, it's irritating and petty. This is just another case of that. I was intrigued by this post and will explain why I decided to respond. Maybe it's also a problem with the supplier of these images. I've already made and posted quite a few skins for DCS planes to share with the community, until I discovered that some of my skins were later published with minimal or no modifications under other names. Those who have worked on such things will confirm to me a lot of work and time spent on the computer, especially when it comes to models without templates that you have to create yourself. Therefore am oneself arbitrated that the their leather for I shall to use only alone. I had an F-35A in progress according to VSN, I decided to publish it later, I still need to work on it a bit, especially the RoughMet. Apologies for this Jason32, but my Aggressor is 5021.