cfrag

First of all, this is not a joke request - I really think that we should have a C-172 or PA-28 in DCS. And it should be one of the free planes, available for everyone. But why? First and foremost for contrast. So many people know the other flight sim, and when they come to DCS they want to first experience the unknown in the known, e.g. take off from Batumi in a 172. If it has a good flight model (unlike most of the dinky 172s in the other sim) and realistic stall behaviour, they'll immediately see that they "aren't in Kansas any more, Dory" - even without making things go boom. I think it makes DCS much more approachable, as a simple 172 or Cherokee is also simple to set up, experience, and immediately makes the neophyte user want more - after they know how the basics work in DCS (I've watched by godson getting frustrated with DCS trying to set it up himself, he quit half way through - not because it was difficult, but because DCS is s#|7 to set up, a horrendously bad UX). Make them hunger for more, allow them to cross into DCS more smoothly. It also makes such a great difference when you've 172'd Senaki-Kolkhi's 09, and then try the same in a jet (e.g. Su-25T). That way the difference between other flight sims and DCS becomes much more palpable, and DCS can show off, put it's best foot forward. Being able to compare something known with something new helps players to be convinced that DCS really is better than that other sim. For other players, I also assert that a slow, easy to fly modern prop plane - especially for those who are licensed - is something that they'd appreciate and use to get to know new airfields/maps. Perhaps use the YAK-52 (nobody believes anymore that it will ever leave EA, so we might as well use it for something useful) as a Cherokee spring board and make it available to all for free after stripping the more complex parts (retractable gear, constant speed prop etc). A low complexity SEPL for all could be what people want to see in DCS - if just to compare that plane's performance to the Hornet that they stap on a minute later. Heck, I'd even pay for those, but I also paid for the YAK - simply to have some low complexity plane in DCS.

Well, living in Switzerland (and Europe by association) does have it's advantages. La fée verte never really went away here (from Neuchâtel and some other Cantons) and has returned in earnest some 30 years ago. That psychedelic brouhaha surrounding thujone appears to have been a bad-faith rumor placed intentionally by some other spirit industry magnate and now turns out to be incorrect. "Death in the afternoon", unlike the book, is worth it, if not in the quantities recommended by Hemmingway ("5 before 5") . I'm thinking along similar lines, any experimenting with some set-ups that hopefully allow for both good QoL and good performance. Agreed.

Cue Sonny & Cher's "I Got You Babe" to start another Groundhog Day...

I've mulled this idea a bit. Depending on how people add statics to embellish a mission (I do add quite a bit of statics for eye candy purposes) this could add quite a bit of overhead. So, sitting on a deck chair, holding a glass of 'death in the afternoon' (a cocktail invented by Ernest Hemmingway and seriously debilitating), and mulling this question I had a couple of ideas that I can no longer recall. BUT, maybe I can come up with something that allows both static objects AND map objects to be included as recon targets. I'll see what I can do. Since that bottle of Champagne is empty anyways, there's a good chance that the idea survives the week-end...

20250705 - added missing audio Yeah, I forgot to include the audio files for some aural mission embellishment. Added. Enjoy, -ch

This would be a tough nut to crack, as - the way that you phrase it - the objective is intentionally insufficiently defined. I think what you are looking for is a mission generator that either randomly picks 3 types of missions from a set of e.g. 12, and assembles those three around you and leaves it up to you which one to go after when you discover it. This mission has a limited 'shelf life', as when the mission is created, DCS currently has very little means to randomize the mission itself. Another approach would be to create a mission that offers all (or a good portion) of the missions that you are interested in, randomizes them for replay-ability and allows the pilot to pick whatever they like. These missions already exist - not from ED, but from mission authors who post their missions on ED's User Files. The type of mission usually is called a 'sandbox' or similar. So, yeah, I'd love if there was a more flexible, more randomized mission 'configurator' that could randomly pull down some mission types around you. I wouldn't hold my breath though, as the kind people at ED have shown their very limited abilities in content creation tools with that QAG thing that IMHO can't do anything right. WRT the living, breathing world, you would again need to resort to third party tools (civil air traffic etc), and be mindful of the fact that each and every moving part will draw processor cycles. So if you populate all airfields, your CPUs may crumble from that load alone. To curtail this, you'd need to create a living bubble around your base of operation. I agree that DCS's Mission Editor should be able to place 'bubbles of activity' that automatically provide that living, breathing semblance of life, while not having it outside to calm your CPU's nerves.

The Mudhen is finished. And I don’t mean feature complete <evil grin>

Say ‚I Don’t know how software sales work‘ without those words. And we were talking about the *majority* of sales. We all can read business cases (I do so since 1995) and we all acknowledge ‚the long tail‘ for non-tangible products; otherwise a 6-year veteran of EA wouldn’t sell, and the false promise of ‘Early Access’ may indeed lure the unwary neophyte to purchase an old module like the Viper. Does ED really think that they need to resort to this level of deceptive sales because in most software markets “early access” implies “fresh”? I think that they should be above that, it’s a bit pathetic. At this point in time, the RB modules are as dead as the Hawk. They may still mostly function (and I fly them) and linger for a while, but without a revenue stream they are dead to ED. And without ED performing maintenance, their viability shrinks fast. But indeed, let’s all hope for a miracle.

All modules will eventually stop working. Some modules will stop working sooner than others, the Mudhen likely amongst them. And we have precedence: the Hawk. So it's an educated prediction of future fact. Believing otherwise is wishful thinking, bordering on denial.

Agreed - and I'm part of this problem. I believe it would be more honest if ED dropped the act to pretend that they will "finish" a module. Put differently, which of the modules in the catalogue (including maps) is not EA? And which of these do we believe ED will really follow up on their promise to finish? Let's be clear-eyed about this: almost none. So let's stop pretending that these modules are still being developed. Remove the EA label, and be done with it. I'll never see damage model for the YAK. Big new additions for SC? Pull the other one. Sniper Pod XR, towed decoy, for the Viper? Sure, any time. It's only been 6 years. I recommend that ED tet the modules stand on their own merits (of which there decidedly are many), and stop making promises that they cannot keep.

I believe this to be an astute observation. And irrespective of who owns and maintains the original code base, it also explains why most - if not all - modules receive so few and sluggish support. Since ED is on a one-off sales business model, we can expect EA modules that do not make the initial sales expectation to stop being actively developed within 4 months (meaning, they are put into maintenance mode), and the rest being put into maintenance mode after a year or so. I do not believe that the majority of the EA modules that I own (I own them all) are actively developed (to me, 'active development' means at least a fixed 0.2 FTE (1 day/8 hours per week) are allocated, and used to create new features; everything else is maintenance). I am under no illusions that, for example, ED will ever complete the YAK-52, which now I own for 6+ years, still has no damage model to speak of, and ED telling me The profits have been made for this module, there is little (if any) business interest for ED to invest into the YAK now. Any investments into the YAK are opportunistic face-saving gestures. So, the F-15E faces a double whammy: it has exhausted most of it's profitability (12+ months past release, and this publicity nightmare), so there is little incentive to develop it further at this point in time, even if they had everything inhouse: too little return on investment. AND: code base, knowhow and assets are likely not owned by ED (even after the Hawk disaster), so even if ED somehow receive ownership, it's highly unlikely that we'll see this incarnation of the mudhen receive any significant updates - it's simply not financially viable. Just like all the other EA modules that are past the 12 month line. ED makes more money selling new modules, and those are lined up already: the FF 15C, 29A, Fat Amy. They'll all be sold as "Early Access", and they'll likely all be forever in EA. It's not ill will - it's how ED's business model works.

Plus, it performs really, really good...

You sweet, sweet summer child welcome to the 'fields of desperation' when during corona anything was sold - even a Beemer Cab where a dog had chewed through the leather of a back seat. (oh, above image is that of a Lambo backseat being chewed up)

While that may definitely be true, I'm sure that it also bugged you that the ABS sensor was not working even though you paid for it. To me only one of the annoyances of the Mudhen (and Farmer, and Harrier, and Mirage) is the fact that they now seemingly are out of service. That is bad. Annoying. Heart-breaking even. What really goes against the grain for me with the F15-E is that I paid for promised future features (you know, when the complete module is published after it leaves "Early Access") that now won't arrive. It's like when you purchased the 328i with the promise of a new leather coat for the back seats, and the garage then goes under without making good on their promise -- but they took your money. A broken promise. I have similar reservations with regards to my F-16, Mosquito, F-1, Jeff, Tomcat, YAK, Viggen, Apache, Hind, Super Carrier and other (e.g. WWII asset pack). The big difference is that there still may be a sliver of hope for those modules. I want to know if ED plans to keep their promise with the Mudhen (and yes, ED sold me the Mudhen; I believe that they are accountable for whatever they sold me). The concept of "Early Access" in DCS is becoming farcical (after 5 years of early access, ED might as well admit that they do not intend to keep their promise to finish "as quickly as possible", if at all); just sell the modules 'as is'; to me ED have lost all credibility in that regard anyway. Stop pretending that you care, your actions show otherwise. So, the Mudhen is dead development-wise, and as long as it is still working with current DCS, we can at least get some mileage out of it. We overpaid, though, and putting our trust into ED seems to have been a bad decision. We won't be getting the F-15E's promised features, and it may be soon that a new version of DCS comes out that no longer supports it, just like DCS stopped supporting the Hawk a couple of years ago. So yeah, to me the Mudhen's a "dead bird flapping" for now. Disappointing to say the least. Let's hope everyone involved get their act together and come up with a good solution for us customers.

Version 2.5.2 - 20250703 - minor update Dog days. A heat dome sits across Europe, and it really doesn't agree with me. So I got very little done (except putting the finishing touches on "Ferry Sinai", see here (ED User Files) and, by the looks of it, forgetting to include audio. I'll do that when the temperatures become more agreeable, probably next week. I've done some re-writing of the docs, and some debugging. In all, this is update has few exciting updates, if any: Documentation Main - various updates Quick Ref - small updates Demos Modules - artillery zones 3.0.1 - corrected typo and removed deprecated attributes Time to jump into Lake Zürich!

Version 20250705 - added some audio Download here (ED User Files) Do you know that feeling? When you can't be bothered, and you just want to FLY! This mission scratches that itch. Any plane, anywhere, hot or cold, any livery. Just jump into that cockpit and take off into the wild blue yonder. Fly that aircraft from one location to another and have a blast. Switch to any other plane that you own at a moment's notice. Enjoy yourself! And if you *can* be bothered, this mission can suggest some location to fly to, and maybe even navigate to a beacon on the way. Of course it allows you to choose any airfield on the map as destination. And yeah, the mission will look up frequencies and other stuff for you. Because it knows that you can't be bothered otherwise, and you simply want to have fun. This mission is so simple and so much fun, I'm surprised that I had to create it. So here it is - slightly embellished with some bells and whistles like civil air traffic, fog, etc. to keep you interested. For example, it can keep a log of your achievements, per type and a total: And since you guys asked for it: Ferry can and does keep a record of your flight time, distance etc. per airframe, and even shares it with the other "Ferry" missions (Caucasus, Germany, ...) IMPORTANT NOTE Due to the way that DCS works, this mission can only grant access to all your aircraft if it is run as "multiplayer" even if you are flying all alone. That "Freebie Plane"? It's only there to mock you in single player. So, press "LAUNCH MULTIPLAYER SERVER" to start this mission for real, join BLUE, and then click on DYNAMIC SLOTS to gain access to ALL airfields, stocked with ALL aircraft that you own. And yeah, the mission does support multiplayer. I never tested it with more than 40 concurrent players, but it should support even more if your server can take the load. NOTE In order to persist your achievements (and to share them with other Ferry missions) you must de-sanitize DCS

TBH, the fact that I purchased a number of modules (Harrier, Mirage, Mudhen, South America Map) from ED (yes, I purchased from ED - I know that because that's what the bill tells me who collected my payment) seem to have fallen out of service (some even before fulfilling their "Early Access" promise) has left a very bitter taste in my mouth. It's not as if this is the first time; ED has left me holding the bag before when I purchased the Hawk from them. I don't give a rat's behind for lame excuses or sob stories about some contractor acting up. If a company can't keep their suppliers in line, maybe they should take a good, hard look at their processes and they way they conduct business . Please, ED, get your house in order and provide relief for your customers.

Settlements are signed by claimants with the party they contend that they have a claim against. Since RB staff are, by definition, employed by RB (not ED), any such action would not impact the proceedings between ED and RB because RB staff only have claims (unpaid work) against RB. It may well be that RB is trying to disentangle itself from their former staff to put a price tag on/cap what they owe their former employees. That's common practice to limit exposure. It does not, in any way, influence the legal aspect/proceedings between ED and RZ; I would disregard above statement in the context of ED/RZ.

Version 2.35 - 20250630 -- Corsair Added the corsair (and Essex), and some maintenance code to guard new DCS bugs.

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: