StevanJ

I wouldnt worry about it.

It is a bug.. The map's still not finished.. But Hiob is bang on. Report it.

Yeah, Id prefer a real pilot model rather than a soldier- its already in the game, lets make it a dynamic unit as mentioned in the podcast.

Whole heartedly agree about the UI and ive asked for changes, but i doubt theyll come As for your comment, theres ALOT of over thinking going on- And its a question for the individual user.. Does a new person want to fill out 12 lines of code, or work with what weve got, saving your time and get better using it.. With a little practice, i can squeeze out a full campaign in a little over a few days. And then create a completely different campaign with a much harder difficulty for someone who wants it, in 25 minutes. It all comes down to personal preference, but for me, 12 lines of code or a few seconds in using what we have? Ill pick what we have.. Theres nothing worse than spending your time learning the code just to achieve the same thing in the editor in 2 minutes, then enjoying the moment you dont have to maintain the mission because of a new OB patch. EDIT: Didnt you previously ask for a placement for a 'roadside FARP'? I made this, and i hope it helps..

No problem, So would i I just think we've a long wait ahead..

There is a workaround, i dont know if it will help. But all you need for a basic set up is a single escort (unlimited fuel on- for it and ROE hold fire/Invisible etc) You can have two moving zones aligned in a 'fat hoop' Ill try and put together something quick.. The first zone is on the unit you want to fly with (internal) and switches flag off for going too near to the unit -you want to fly alongside. The one outside of that can be double to whatever size and can switch on The 'escort' moving zone gives you a specific 'dual zone' to which allows you a flag on- 'if in zone 'tanker' and zone 'f15' at the same time etc.. Quick put together.. With more complex setups More planes can only mean more immersion right? Obviously you can scale it in formations ie 'line up abreast f15, and line up with wing' of tanker. Having a message that says 'thats it!' with flag on after a few seconds (or instantly to make it obvious..) You can tweak the zone by adjusting formation settings (after the first time, youll be able to duplicate it much easier). With this method you can actually figure out where the 'refuel zone' in for the F-16/FA18 and make a decent trigger that works without a script. These are rough and can be alot tighter and more specific for each plane just by adding more triggerzones, my f16 'hoop' gives the player about 2 foot each front and back for room which helps the player. They make a really great guide to help those who want to A to A refuel or fly in formation.. Your number 2 sounds a great idea. Id love a 'follow player' command. I looked everywhere for this during my last major mission making session. I always have an 'activate group' on set landing pads. So when you land the Huey in a mission, a second or two after youll have a Humvee/Fire engine tootle over and approach you, along with a couple others if need be driving along its waypoints.. The only workaround i came up with was to a 'follow command' was to crash in a 'pre planned location or route' and have the hummer activate when youre lower than 2 ft agl, but stop along the path when its hits a moving zone- and a hold command activates when the flag is received. A follow command for ground units would make that easier.. Hope these help..

+1

You can name groups in the Mission Editor.. We also have 'Insurgents' as a coalition.

Long-winded but a switched condtion- Set flag 1 value 0 at mission start Flag 1 on part of players group above 50ft. Unit 1 in zone increase flag 1 value by 10. Repeat (clone) for each unit. Unit 1 out of zone decrease flag 1 value by 10. Repeat (clone) for each unit. If flag value is more than 100 (youll know you have 10 units in zone) message to all 10 units. If flag value is more than 290 (youll know you have 29 units in zone) message to all 29 units. If flag value is 0. (no units in zone) message to all 0 units. Win game? As i said, the more the details the more specificity we can help you with. So the better the 'mission description' the better the solution.

This is a low effort post..

This just happened on Syria, and then not as badly on Persian Gulf and actually gave me a log after swapping a video card to a different 2080ti. Second time it happened, no log.. It boots me from the Link all the way to the Quests home page and wont allow me to re-link unless i restart the headset. I can add the tracks linked here too, but the limit needs increasing dcs.log i5 8400, 16gb ram, 2080ti If im on Syria, It wont give me a log but its much worse and the game never lasts. It doesnt happen on Caucasus.

I would like more than 3 independent factions. I would love to have 5- Red, Blue, White, Green, Yellow for example. This would add diversity to a fight..

I really dont know im just guessing on what we have.. Who am i to say whats allowed, and not allowed. I think you can accurately portray a very real conflict in the current engine.. And I dont think the current view on factions needs to be altered as it wouldnt achieve any difference in an outcome from a mission, if made well.. The only thing i actually agree with Op. on is where he says.. Which is especially true now we have the tide of helicopters approaching. The Hind does need new targets as its not as sophisticated as the Apache. We do need new/more infantry- Especially a new AI with a multitude of Liveries, and a new wave of animations for the model. Otherwise the Hind's gonna be a little bit boring. Everything else is really easily solvable and very do-able from a mission perspective, in the mission editor. And added factions/coalitions wouldnt add anything to a mission/campaign but another layer of complexity that i personally think is unwanted.. Do you build missions? Is this something you think might make your missions better?

Nice!

Can you give more info on what it is youre trying to achieve? If i need units in zone, i normally put all those units into a group, and then Group alive less than and Part of group in Zone. Or Part of group in zone and unit in zone flag increase If flag value more than.. But unless i know how the mission is going to pan out im stuck on how to achieve the goal.

At first I wanted the same thing, But i realised the moving zone IS the solution. "Advanced"- Mission Planning will solve this issue. The moving Zone is THE BEST way of dealing with distance between two units. Its how we can deal with 'mid air refuelling' triggers too without a script. Do you plan your missions first? Because alot of what you seem to be asking can be made alot easier just by making a plan, and 'building it outside of the editor first'.. Draw your mission on a piece of paper ie- 'Unit kills target' (unit at one end the target at the other with a line between them), then write down what 'other units/tasks' you want in the 'plot line' (the middle of the mission). ie FA18 Kills Tanks, On the way to his primary task his options 'might' or 'might not' include random events; an example being 'staying clear of Anti Air/destroying CAP/mid air or ground Refuels/joins up with an escort etc'. Build your plot first independantly of the rest of the mission allowing the player to 'win' once they achieve it and make this his sole mission- then assign independant sub plots that contribute towards or against his primary mission- And get into a practice of naming the units in the current task 'A', 'A1' until a task is finished in the mission editor. Once a task is complete- Rename the unit with a proper name to signal that task is finished and to certify to yourself 'this task has been completed' Moving zones then become MUCH easier to setup, example- player 'A' inside moving zone (distance) enemy 'A1' Making sure you complete the task to the finish, before moving on to sub tasks that might happen randomly. This will stop you from having to scroll through a long list of units each and every time.

+ 1

Sorry no, As i said i didnt print it. I linked the user who did. Hope that helps..

Just a word of warning: I once tried scripts many moons ago.. They were great- However, My biggest problem with them, was having to fix them with every other new update that was released for the game that broke them. Some werent reliable no matter how i approached them. Times passed since that day- The orginal missions are all gone (replaced with good old scriptless one), and maybe there has been improvements, but the last thing i wanted to do as a mission designer was to constantly fix broken scripts to my missions. When there is usually a good work around, or an improvement made to the Mission Editor, that allows a similar solution without the maintainance. I just moved away from them. But i understand others will move to them. Id be interested to hear someone who IS an expert in them, and see if they are more reliable anymore or they do require maintainance..

No. Its not in production.

Thought you guys might like this stick.. Not me, but someone else 3D printed the FW190 stick.. And i thought it looks pretty awesome.. User and more pics here.

I think a basic word search in google would give you a basic understanding to why 'Third Reich' is used in the game instead of the other term previously used. Yeah, I agree, Which is why i doubt ED would put any of them in.. What about 'Allied Insurgent'? Or 'Opposing Insurgent' as you mentioned? Would that suffice?

I know you didn't. It's OK. Just like you didn't mean any harm. Neither does ED, and rather than trip and offend someone somewhere. It's probably easier to avoid everyone and I think that's why we have enemies called 'insurgents'. You all raise good points though. And I'd be interested in seeing a resolve to your points.

You raise some good points. I'd be interested to know why the user above you referenced Naz*'s and yourself referenced the third reich?

Well better tools I'll agree with, but labelling terrorist groups that some who may have lost families by -I think may be in bad taste. I may be wrong.. I just don't think ED will support or add these groups to the game. Especially when 'insurgents' is a term that covers those same groups without highlighting one specifically. We live in a world where we can't even publish cartoons without someone seeing it offensive.