Rex

So they're classified, big deal, how hard would it be to take an educated guess at the yield and model a really, really big explosion? Are people really going to say, "wait a minute that bomb took out one tree too many ... I want a refund!" Okay, forget I asked that question. DCS fans can be an anal lot, and I could totally see that happening.

Nuclear weapons are destructive, obviously, but like almost everything, their destructive power is exaggerated. Over 2,000 nuclear detonations have happened on earth (some quite large), and here we all are. As it turns out, atmospheric ignition doesn't actually happen (fortunately for all of us). Despite these 2,000-ish detonations, instead of nuclear winter, people claim that we need to worry about global warming instead. The largest detonation ever, the Tsar Bomba, created a fireball with a radius if about 3 miles. Terrifying if you're in that three miles (or not since you won't know what hit you), but, for instance, the plane that dropped it landed safely. So while nuclear weapons are scary as hell, and they definitely will kill a massive number of people should they ever strike large cities en-masse, I don't think they will bring about the end of the world. Sure, they would end the mission in DCS, but who cares? Watching an enormous explosion coalesce into a mushroom cloud in the DCS environment would be so cool, that it would totally be worth having to reset the mission. I mean, it's a hell of a climax to a mission, that's for sure. It would be super-exciting to have them, and if you didn't immediately start creating missions for no other reason that to nuke random locations, then I weep for your loss of curiosity, creativity, and excitement. If we ever got (real) nukes, dare I say that I wouldn't sleep for a month as I set about nuking every village, town, city and tree in the sim. I'd make everyone I know watch along with me, and I would enjoy every single solitary last second of it. If anyone truly would not want it, I'd have to seriously question why they even use DCS in the first place, as the thing that sets DCS apart from MS Flight Sim, X-Plane, etc, is the fact that we can we can send our opponents hurtling toward the ground in a ball of fire, before turning his ground units into kindle and blowing nearby buildings to smithereens. Nukes are just a natural progression of this. If you don't want them, fair enough, don't use them. Don't take the option away from everyone else just because you don't see the point. If I spend all day playing 5 minute missions that begin and end with me blowing my opponents to kingdom come with a single warhead, then it means that is what I want to do. Yes, I'm still a 5 year-old mentally and I'm easily amused by things that go boom, but I already have a job and real-world problems, and if that's how I get my kicks then the more power to me, and you, and whomever else. DCS, make proper big nukes with the accompanying awe-inspiring visuals and I'll send you a blank check to fill in as you see fit. (not really, I'm making a point, but I'd probably pay a relatively decent amount for the pleasure) Anyway, that's my two cents and it's worth every penny. eh, plans change I once swore to everyone who would listen that I'd never have kids. Then I did. More than one! To be fair, the wife helped a little, but it goes to illustrate the point. Plans change.

Fixed: AI aircraft sometimes ignore bombing waypoint action. I don't know if this was just intended to fix the specific "bombing" action, but it has not effected "Attack Map Object" tasks. I just loaded up 10 Luftwaffe airplane groups with "Attack Map Object" actions in London, and armed them all with bombs. JU-88, Dora, and Antons. 1 of the 10 groups delivered it's bombs. The rest just flew over/near the targets and left.

It's almost impossible to pick favorites because I love each map for different reasons. There isn't one I could put at the bottom of a list. With that being said, I'm surprised to see Normandy near the bottom of yours. Especially with Normandy 2.0 having been released. It has both London and Paris, as well as the Eifel Tower, Arc Du Triumph, Mont St Michael, Westminster Abbey, Windsor Castle, Omaha Beach, to name just a few + tons of airfields, including dozens of temporary airfields. It's a spectacular map. And I can still max out the frames in VR. If you haven't flown it in awhile, I'd invite you to revisit it and see what they've done with it in the last couple of years.

Looks like it might be related to Tacview.

I've been getting a lot of CTDs lately, especially with missions that have a lot of ground units. Many times it doesn't write a track file too, because it's "skipped due to large size". The thing is 20MB is not very large at all. Isn't this a rather low limit to use for not writing a track file? 7382 2024-10-11 05:28:10.709 INFO APP (Main): E:\DCS\DCS World OpenBeta\Mods\aircraft\Bf-109K-4\bin\Bf109K4.dll, 9667072 bytes, created 3:10:2024-4.34.31, written 3:10:2024-4.34.31, accessed 11:10:2024-5.28.11 7383 2024-10-11 05:28:10.709 INFO APP (Main): E:\DCS\DCS World OpenBeta\bin-mt\Jueves.dll, 2491904 bytes, created 3:10:2024-4.34.27, written 3:10:2024-4.34.27, accessed 11:10:2024-5.28.11 7384 2024-10-11 05:28:10.709 INFO APP (Main): try to write track file 7385 2024-10-11 05:28:11.691 INFO APP (Main): 'C:\Users\Rex\Saved Games\DCS.openbeta\Logs\dcs.20241011-052811.crash' deleted successfully 7386 2024-10-11 05:28:11.745 INFO APP (Main): 'C:\Users\Rex\Saved Games\DCS.openbeta\Logs\dcs.20241011-052811.dmp' deleted successfully 7387 2024-10-11 05:28:11.745 WARNING APP (Main): file 'C:\Users\Rex\Saved Games\DCS.openbeta\Tracks/LastMissionTrack.trk' skipped due to large size, 20.179279 MB Last Crash: 7038 2024-10-11 05:28:10.484 INFO EDCORE (Main): try to write dump information 7039 2024-10-11 05:28:10.487 INFO EDCORE (Main): # -------------- 20241011-052811 -------------- 7040 2024-10-11 05:28:10.488 INFO EDCORE (Main): DCS/2.9.8.1214 (x86_64; MT; Windows NT 10.0.22631) 7041 2024-10-11 05:28:10.490 INFO EDCORE (Main): E:\DCS\DCS World OpenBeta\bin-mt\lua.dll 7042 2024-10-11 05:28:10.491 INFO EDCORE (Main): # C0000005 ACCESS_VIOLATION at 00007fff7f18066c 00:00000000 7043 2024-10-11 05:28:10.492 INFO EDCORE (Main): SymInit: Symbol-SearchPath: 'E:\DCS\DCS World OpenBeta\bin-mt;', symOptions: 532, UserName: 'Rex' 7044 2024-10-11 05:28:10.493 INFO EDCORE (Main): OS-Version: 10.0.22631 () 0x100-0x1 7045 2024-10-11 05:28:10.495 INFO EDCORE (Main): 0x000000000001066c (lua): luaS_newlstr + 0x132C 7046 2024-10-11 05:28:10.496 INFO EDCORE (Main): 0x0000000000010397 (lua): luaS_newlstr + 0x1057 7047 2024-10-11 05:28:10.497 INFO EDCORE (Main): 0x0000000000010304 (lua): luaS_newlstr + 0xFC4 7048 2024-10-11 05:28:10.498 INFO EDCORE (Main): 0x000000000001003a (lua): luaS_newlstr + 0xCFA 7049 2024-10-11 05:28:10.500 INFO EDCORE (Main): 0x000000000000fdfe (lua): luaS_newlstr + 0xABE 7050 2024-10-11 05:28:10.500 INFO EDCORE (Main): 0x0000000000013b0b (lua): luaS_newlstr + 0x47CB 7051 2024-10-11 05:28:10.500 INFO EDCORE (Main): 0x00000000000024c5 (lua): lua_settable + 0x25 7052 2024-10-11 05:28:10.500 INFO EDCORE (Main): 0x00000000006f2bc1 (DCS): SW + 0x207B51 7053 2024-10-11 05:28:10.500 INFO EDCORE (Main): 0x00000000006f3646 (DCS): SW + 0x2085D6 7054 2024-10-11 05:28:10.500 INFO EDCORE (Main): 0x000000000001ee12 (edObjects): RegStorage::setHostID + 0x11F2 7055 2024-10-11 05:28:10.500 INFO EDCORE (Main): 0x0000000000020159 (edObjects): RegisterManager::Create + 0x8B9 7056 2024-10-11 05:28:10.500 INFO EDCORE (Main): 0x00000000006f28ef (DCS): SW + 0x20787F 7057 2024-10-11 05:28:10.500 INFO EDCORE (Main): 0x0000000000006ee5 (lua): luaD_growstack + 0x4B5 7058 2024-10-11 05:28:10.500 INFO EDCORE (Main): 0x000000000000689c (lua): lua_setlocal + 0x9FC 7059 2024-10-11 05:28:10.500 INFO EDCORE (Main): 0x00000000000070cf (lua): luaD_growstack + 0x69F 7060 2024-10-11 05:28:10.500 INFO EDCORE (Main): 0x0000000000006a9e (lua): luaD_growstack + 0x6E 7061 2024-10-11 05:28:10.500 INFO EDCORE (Main): 0x0000000000001c00 (lua): lua_pcall + 0x60 7062 2024-10-11 05:28:10.500 INFO EDCORE (Main): 0x00000000000188cb (tacview): (function-name not available) + 0x0 7063 2024-10-11 05:28:10.500 INFO EDCORE (Main): 0x0000000000027f05 (tacview): luaopen_tacview + 0x38A5 7064 2024-10-11 05:28:10.501 INFO EDCORE (Main): 0x000000000003413e (tacview): luaopen_tacview + 0xFADE 7065 2024-10-11 05:28:10.501 INFO EDCORE (Main): 0x0000000000024656 (tacview): (function-name not available) + 0x0 7066 2024-10-11 05:28:10.501 INFO EDCORE (Main): 0x0000000000006ee5 (lua): luaD_growstack + 0x4B5 7067 2024-10-11 05:28:10.501 INFO EDCORE (Main): 0x00000000000131cc (lua): luaS_newlstr + 0x3E8C 7068 2024-10-11 05:28:10.501 INFO EDCORE (Main): 0x00000000000068ab (lua): lua_setlocal + 0xA0B 7069 2024-10-11 05:28:10.501 INFO EDCORE (Main): 0x00000000000070cf (lua): luaD_growstack + 0x69F 7070 2024-10-11 05:28:10.501 INFO EDCORE (Main): 0x0000000000006a9e (lua): luaD_growstack + 0x6E 7071 2024-10-11 05:28:10.501 INFO EDCORE (Main): 0x0000000000001c00 (lua): lua_pcall + 0x60 7072 2024-10-11 05:28:10.501 INFO EDCORE (Main): 0x0000000000078fd6 (edCore): ED_lua_pcall + 0x236 7073 2024-10-11 05:28:10.501 INFO EDCORE (Main): 0x000000000007357d (edCore): Lua::Config::call_func + 0xED 7074 2024-10-11 05:28:10.501 INFO EDCORE (Main): 0x0000000000a6e33d (DCS): SW + 0x5832CD 7075 2024-10-11 05:28:10.501 INFO EDCORE (Main): 0x000000000090cd05 (DCS): SW + 0x421C95 7076 2024-10-11 05:28:10.501 INFO EDCORE (Main): 0x00000000009325b2 (DCS): SW + 0x447542 7077 2024-10-11 05:28:10.501 INFO EDCORE (Main): 0x00000000008ecb04 (DCS): SW + 0x401A94 7078 2024-10-11 05:28:10.501 INFO EDCORE (Main): 0x00000000008ee233 (DCS): SW + 0x4031C3 7079 2024-10-11 05:28:10.501 INFO EDCORE (Main): 0x00000000022990ad (DCS): AmdPowerXpressRequestHighPerformance + 0x120B0A9 7080 2024-10-11 05:28:10.501 INFO EDCORE (Main): 0x0000000000ccde52 (DCS): SW + 0x7E2DE2 7081 2024-10-11 05:28:10.501 INFO EDCORE (Main): 0x000000000001257d (KERNEL32): BaseThreadInitThunk + 0x1D 7082 2024-10-11 05:28:10.668 INFO EDCORE (Main): Minidump created.

Eh? In what way? I just flew the F-16 and the rudder worked great.

61 new military bases have been added: Syria 24 Israel 17 Jordan 5 Lebanon 15

Changed actions on 20 units from CAP to Intercept. Unfortunately, I'd had a previous en-route task attached, so when I tried to start the mission, I was greeted with a long list of errors. The Enroute Task that I have associated with the groups doesn't work with Intercept, and I knew the drill .... tedious manual delete of enroute task #1, manual delete of enroute task #2, manual delete of enroute task #3 and on and on. But it seemed rather unnecessarily tedious. After all, if the task doesn't work, there are two automatic actions that would seem to make way more sense. Either: 1) Delete It 2) Ignore it (possibly while highlighting it as an ignored task) The current forbid-save action is the word of all worlds. After all, if I ever wanted to change it back, it would be yet another tedious editing session. Being unable to save barring a lengthy editing session is definitely not a good thing, as it leaves us open to data loss. Can the ME just delete the actions if they don't work with the task type? Or barring that, silently ignore them, perhaps while highlighting them in red as it currently does? Sometimes the task types can be a little finicky, and it's not uncommon to have to play with them to get the desired activity out of the AI. Thank you.

Yeah, I see what you mean. And wow, it's impressive that you got away with the buttons for so long. I think, I did for like my first week. Honestly, it may be possible for the jets. I think you could got away with buttons for the F/A-18 maybe, assuming you don't use the rudder that much. In the case of the Kurfurst, I think you'd have to have analog control for the toe brakes because I'm modulating them until I'm airborne, and sometimes have both activated to some degree at the same time... 40% right, 10% left, or what have you and I subtly modulate them back and forth ... almost like stick movement during AA refueling. I don't really pay attention anymore. It's like walking, you just do it second nature without thinking now, but my hat definitely is off to anyone who can button-steer the 109. In fact, I think they should put "Requires Pedals" on the "Requirements" list for the plane so people realize how critical they are. Unless you trim out the plane in the main screen settings, you also need to ride the rudder a bit to keep the plane level (there's no in-plane aileron or rudder trim), so I work the pedals even once airborne. You could possibly get away with something like a twist-grip for rudder, though. After solely flying jets for a long time, I learned that I absolutely positively need two things to fly warbirds: 1) Good pedals 2) Force feedback stick Without #2 I couldn't fly piston planes. I pulled into a stall every single time, and I just abandon trying. Force-Feedback really opened up the genre for me. When I can feel that first hint of buffet, I know exactly how to make it do what I need. Without that feel, it's a completely different endeavor. It probably doesn't speak much for my skill that I am so inflexible and need relatively expensive gear just to get off the ground, but unfortunately, it's true. I need dedicated hardware controls for everything (I even have hardware MFDs) and as much tactile feedback as I can get or I'm useless. Oh who am I kidding ... I'm useless with them. Just slightly less so with the gear.

I don't think he's asking for them to change the flight model. I think he's expressing his difficulty with the controls. Honestly, I'm not sure I'd advocate changing anything from EDs point of view, but if someone is struggling, I'm not going to <profanity> on them for expressing their difficulties. I know the individual words in this sentence, but I don't fully understand the complete sentence. I THINK you're saying that I am a moderator and I am censoring you? If that is what you are saying then you are incorrect. I have no moderator permissions whatsoever in the DCS Forums. Frankly I'm not even sure how you came to this conclusion. I'm just a regular user, and relative to most of these other guys, I'm one of the newer members. In addition, I have never reported anyone or asked a moderator to moderate anyone. On any forum anywhere. I may not agree with you about everything, but I appreciate your point of view and would not do anything to limit it.

Indeed, if he had any sense, he'd save the anger for the forums of the game that he has no reason to get mad about. You have to forgive the flawed people, they haven't mastered this perfectly-directed-anger thing to the degree that you have. It clearly bothers you to see people get frustrated over things that don't bother you, which is much more legitimate than letting a game bother you. I mean it must be, since you do it.

Is empathy that hard to come by? I don't think it's that hard to understand the man's frustration. I don't think people recognize how integral pedals are to taildraggers, and if you're used to using a twist-stick to compensate, it must be very frustrating as the Kurfürst uses differential braking and not the rudders per-se. I'm sure that's taken a lot of people off-guard, but if you have a disability, it's gotta be frustrating as hell.

I was not aware of this, I honestly thought everyone had rudder pedals, as most of the aircraft and helicopters are patently unflyable without them. And since they are simulators, I figured they were necessary. I had not thought of the injuries that you spoke of. I guess that would call for somewhat creative solutions. Can you map the twist grip, so that when you twist it while pressing the SHIFT key, it instead operates the wheel brakes? I completely agree with you that it would be impossible to taxi the Kurfurst without pedals. I fly it every day, and have gotten decent with ground control, but if you took away my pedals, I'd be unable to do anything. So it's not anything that you're doing wrong, you're just trying to do the impossible. It would be possible if you could figure out some alternative, but the alternative must be analog, and not on/off.

I don't think I'd be able to fly the Kurfurst with buttons for braking. It's my primary plane and I fly it every day, but I very rarely, if ever, fully lock a brake unless I'm trying to turn while going slow. I have pedals and rarely step on them all the way. After landing and getting down below 50kph or so, I never press both at the same time because, yes, it will nose-plant at relatively slow speeds. To stop quickly, I walk the brakes left - right - left - right quickly oscillating back and forth, about 1/2 - 3/4ths strength, while making sure never to step on the both at the same time. If I stepped on one or the other 100%, I imagine I'd get the same behavior your experienced. Unfortunately, these things are too nuanced to to use off/on controls unless you can figure out a way to do it very quickly, and average the force out over time. I'd imagine that would take a lot of practice, though. You mentioned that you can't step on pedals, you can probably emulate pedals with the pinkie switch or one of the analog joystick controls. Maybe even the twist-grip of the joystick if you have one, left for left brake, right for right brake, as long as it's analog, you could probably make it work.

I'm probably the most reliable defender of DCS on the forums, whether DCS is on the right or wrong, but this is the one issue where you lose me. I own all of the maps and probably 75% of the aircraft in DCS, so I'm in for over $1,000 which has been money well-spent. With that being said, having that $1K entirely dependent on the auth server being up - transfers 100% of your infrastructure risk to me ... while enjoying 0% of it's control or ability to rectify it. Alas, I already have a job, I already have ample responsibilities, none of which I make ED share. I would appreciate the reciprocation of not placing me squarely in the crosshairs every time you guys have a server glitch. Frankly, I've grown tired of auth server roulette, and never wanted to play in the first place. Worse still, I'm losing with ever-increasing frequency. This is not acceptable.

FWIW, if I drop into F10 before it crashes, and give the unit another waypoint while the mission is in-progress. he will pull out of the dive and abort the suicide attempt. It may just be a matter of knowing that somebody cares.

I'm writing a large Nevada Map mission which is not yet complete, but after downloading the new version of DCS today, I did notice something immediately. In the mission I have a KJ-2000 performing AWACS, with a single waypoint, and that waypoint has only two actions: 1. AWACS -a 2. Orbit(H) = Hwpt = 30840 ft) In a circular orbit. When I started the mission, the aircraft immediately went into a nearly 90 degree vertical dive, and explodes agains the desert floor. I started the mission again and it did the same thing. I solved it by giving it a Racetrack, but just fyi.

The screen shots were to illustrate that the groups don't show up in the 'Attack Group' dialog, I don't actually spawn them over the guns and expect them to fire. Not sure I understand. Are you saying it's intentional? FWIW, the FLAK units in the missions in question don't have route points and are configured to be in Alarm State: RED at start.

Thank you so much! P.S. In my case, I found that parameter in V1_Missle.lua

Ground-based Air Defense has been exhibiting significantly reduced fire, and in most cases, no fire at all. You also can no longer order AAA/SAM batteries to fire from the Mission Editor any more, because the presence of aircraft in the mission is not acknowledged by, for instance, the "Attack Group" dialog. (see images) It's also impossible to order them to fire as Game Master from the F10 menu when a mission is in-progress. The "Add Target" button is frozen. Every now and then, if I have a battery of say, 6 guns, one ... maybe two will randomly fire at a passing aircraft, but it's sporadic and non-predictable and the majority of guns will stay silent. Map & Era seem to not make a difference. All pictured units are active at mission start. (no late activations) Open Beta version 2.9.6.57650

Ah, those are warnings. I'm not sure what the "limit" denotes, well, I take that back, it has to be degrees of slope as that's the only thing that makes sense. If the parenthesis are the acceptable limit then I wonder why the first one is warning. Maybe 9 degrees is close enough to 10 to warn. Anyway, thanks.

I've seen them after the new update, but I have no idea what they mean.

The thing under the dashboard on the lower-left, near the left pedal, that looks vaguely like an oil filter ... sometimes it continues "vibrating" even after engine dies/is turned off.

Fair enough, thank you On a related note, what percentage of K-4 pilots flew without MW50? During the Battle of Normandy, from the little of been able to find since the Luftwaffe wasn't a huge factor, it seems like most planes were able to come up with the 30.4 gallons of MW50 (15.2 gallons being the more scarce Methanol). So even though there weren't many 109s in the Normandy skies, those that were present appeared to almost always have MW50 ... again, from what I've been able to discern. Don't tell anyone, but the truth is, I wasn't actually there.