cfrag

Yeah, the manual is old in many places, and needs amendment. I corrected that, too - thank you!

They are now -- i.e. next release.

IIRC, all flags in DML can be names, and can be local.

Thanks for reporting this. I traced it to a small typo in arty zones. It was forced into the open by using the (now legacy , deprecated) "f?" attribute. It's fixed in the update below. Enjoy, -ch artilleryZones.lua

This is a GREAT find, thank you @Actium - and IMHO it might help put to shame the sorry excuse that we currently have as 'mission save state' - if this works out well, we can finally create create mission persistence where a unit can be restored to a saved location and health (of course, it still has full ammo, but beggars can't be choosers). It's sometimes depressing to be reminded just how godawful ED's abilities are when following what content creators desperately need and are clamouring for (or designing sensible API)

Thank you so much for looking into this. I cannot confirm that the Tigr's lights are active, the scene is still pitch black dark:

While I’m sure that there are probably some no-competition clauses between the two, I think that this would be the main obstacle. The lion‘s share of the profits are already made, and the negative publicity around this issue will take years to dissipate, so no business case can be made to remake the mudhen in the next few years, especially if an FF „C“ is already announced. The E is IMHO burned for now, and I’ll try to make the most of it as long as it’s still supported. It *is* a great module to play with, unfinished state and all.

At least you acknowledge that you are already filled with hate, which can be a first step in recognizing where a problem may be. Of course two things can be true at once, and yes, there are definitely toxic people around. AFAIK, @Kanelbolle is not amongst them. I usually recommend that you do not interpret, and simply try and find out the facts. You already have everything you need, and it would have taken you another minute - less than it would have taken you to write your angry post - to find out (and I do agree that DCS documentation is bad. Really bad. That's why it's better to try and find out). Are you sure that you weren't just looking for a way to vent your anger? You do sound angry to me. If you want to force your will on others (instead of talking to them and coming to a mutual agreement), that is of course your prerogative. Your server, your rules. It won't be a popular server if the rules that you enforce go against the mainstream, and that may not be your goal. I run my servers so people can have fun which ever way they want.

No. [Edit: to be less opaque: the startup ends on folding down the wings. The taxi starts with wings up, and although I have no issues with that I think that either the dulcet voice of Wags should have mentioned that, or told us (preferred) to lower the wings before starting to taxi. I do not think that a tutorial for taxiing should include taxiing with wings up. Controlling a taildragger is difficult enough as it is. And it's a personal preference - feedback. A problem for me, not a bug ]

Agreed. I simply would have preferred if the training Taxi Mission told us to unfold the wings before starting to taxi. It feels wrong otherwise although you can see other planes taxiing around withtheir wings folded. It’s a gut feeling kind of feedback.

Here's a short feedback for the Taxi & Takeoff Tutorial: Show and tell us how to unfold the wings before we start moving. Taxiing with furled wings feels wrong...

it's near the top third, but not (yet) at the top. And thank you for your kind words, I'm glad you enjoy it.

Update 20250619 - Version 2.5.1 So I took the new ferry module, and applied it to some other maps. I ran into issues with some (relating to data files that contain some unexpected data and characters), and nore importantly I ran into an issue with the way that DCS currently does not allow a script to manage dynamic availability (and hot-start ability) of airfields. I posted a request to ED's pagesm, and have note heard back so far. But the upshot is this: without a script's ability to control if an airfield allows dynamic spawns, it is up to you, the mission designer to click on each and every airfield on the map, and change it by hand. This is annoying for Caucasus. It's a show stop for larger maps with hundreds of airfields like Germany, Sinai or Syria - as I found out the hard way when I created those missions Ferry Germany Ferry Syria I decided that the ferry module simply isn't ready for prime time yet, it requires that ED improve the warehouse (or airfield) API before this module can reach acceptable levels of interaction. Once we have sufficient API support, 'ferry' will be included into the 'official' DML set. While seeing if and how ED respond (so far they have not), I took to heart one of our community leader's comment that I should be more constructive, and I invested a couple of days writing up a (in my mind) better UI/UX for DCS's "Quick Action Generator", which I think has some major design deficiencies. As with the other feedback I've sent to ED we'll see if and how they respond. As (unfortunately) expected, there was none. Oh, well. So, here's a slightly enhanced update to DML: a few bugs corrected that were reported by some kind folk, and some enhancements to "scribe" All Changes: Manual - added new attributes to Scribe for recording total distance travelled Demos Modules - dcsCommon 3.3.2 - getLongestRW (new) - playerScore 5.3.2 - more bug hardening - scribe 2.1.0 - now also tracks distance travelled Enjoy, -ch

That's not a beginner's item, that simply the price of admission, and it applies to everyone. To me, it's like saying that for a beginner Paraglider the upfront cost are too high. Lowering the cost of admission is not making DCS more beginner friendly if for the full admission you still have to spend. It's a data point, surely, and maybe there is something that ED can do to lower the cost across the board - but I doubt that there is much that they can do. After all, complaining that playing Half-Life Alyx has high upfront cost (you need a good VR set) is similarly missing the point entirely. The game costs a small fraction of the hardware required to play it, and with DCS it's similar. IMHO DCS's challenges lie elsewhere. Now, that is indeed a big challenge, and it is painful to me to see how much the kind folk at ED fumble this one over and over again. Terrible UI/UX, terrible tutorials, nothing to do, and content creation tools that harken from a millennia past. Look at the current implementation of DCS's control configuration. It's unintuitive, badly made, and squanders one chance after the other to make getting into DCS a quick, fun experience: Have a fun, interactive experience for a newcomer to set up a simple aircraft, the core controls - after all you only need a few inputs to control any aircraft: pitch, bank, thrust. Gear and Flaps. Optionally Yaw and perhaps wheel brakes. That's it. Enough to fly most planes. If you are smart, you also allow the player to copy your current settings for 'core' controls to all your planes. Because I wager that they are the same for all planes. They are for mine, and I own them all. DCS squanders this chance by displaying a user-hostile interface with myriads of unintelligible (for the beginner) choices, burying the few important settings in an avalanche of unimportant ones. Some hard-core people confuse complexity with sophistication here. It's not sophisticated. It's just crappy UI/UX design. Making this simple step of getting into the cockpit more fun and simple could go a long way. DCS has been obnoxiously bad in this regard for decades. Similarly bad are the experiences to be had for content generation. Be they Instant Action, the new Quick Action Generator or Mission Editor, they simply are user hostile, badly designed, and could be so much better. Worse, there is phenomenal community-created content available (which is great), even hosted by ED (a phenomenal chance). Getting it into DCS is an exercise in futility and bad UX. WTF does a player need to go to ED's web site, use a decades old, really bad web design and navigate to some content, then download and manually install the files? We live in past 2005! Discovering, contributing and managing content should all be integrated into DCS. After all, Unreal Tournament showed us in 1999 how it can be done, and 25 years later there is very little excuse why it's not done here. I hear that a lot, and unfortunately sometimes have to concur. The blame for this IMHO can't be squarely placed at ED, and I hope that if they improved their engagement with the community, that this can change. Community integration still seems underdeveloped as a discipline for ED - tbh, if you read "We do not have time to read through a 30 post thread of two people arguing why something is bad" as your welcome message, you know that there's room for improvement. There is. Which makes it so bewildering that so little effort is done to flatten the curve, or built in steps that make the curve more accessible. This does go against the grain of the more toxic "git gud" people of the community, and I still think it could help DCS become more popular. Again, a missed opportunity. If this is a common question (and I do NOT doubt that it is), there are a lot of things that can be done in DCS to alleviate such basic beginners pains. Just how difficult would it be to tell someone who tries to autostart the A-10A that, when it's not zero, the throttle MUST be set to zero, else the sequence would fail? And how difficult would it be to simply go the logical next step and make the experience better by simply starting the effing plane? When the user presses 'start engine' on the keyboard, their intent and desire is clear. Adding complexity (throttle must be zero) without reason is the realm of really bad design [and IMHO having to manually turn on bat power and EO is just adding insult to injury]. It just results in frustration from the players. I think that this is one of the biggest barriers to enter DCS, and many people fall into the 'it is sophisticated because it is complex' trap. The tutorials are bad. They are often written for the wrong audience, and, on top of that, badly executed. Some people think that because they are difficult they must be good. They aren't, they are just bad. If you, as an instructor, fail to get your point across, you fail as an instructor. Flying isn't difficult. DCS, unfortunately, often makes it unnecessarily difficult, and I hope - since I do love DCS and want to see it flourish - that this can be overcome soon.

Nothing.