cfrag

That may have been a side effect of sg - a DCS synchronization bug that is worked around by putting stopGapGUI on the server (and only the server). You know that you should not provide me with that kind of intel, right? You have given me a ton of evil ideas to put into upcoming versions of Expansion -- Oh, and my compliments to Magic, wrangling the mission and the su-25 nose-jobs. Having real-life command authority on your side definitely is a boon

Most of my audio assets come from here: https://assetstore.unity.com/audio You may need to become a member, but IIRC you can do that for free, and Unity is a first-tier business.

I'd stop right there. Speculating on a speculation does not make it better. It's fun, sure, and we can't manufacture facts from speculation. Uh. Methinks you should put an "I think" somewhere in your assertions to make clear that you, too, are not talking about facts. So you believe that at that crucial point, the video is misleading or (one of the many other possibilities) you do not follow the reasoning. For someone who claims knowledge of the industry this is a jaw-droppingly silly assertion and documents that you seem to have no understanding of the industry at all. Neither consoles and their industry, nor console titles and entertainment titles or how they are developed. If you develop a module or other DLC for a title, you do not suddenly gain the ability (nor have the code) to replicate the environs that your artifact (mod/dlc) runs in. Just because you can create a plug-in for, say, Photoshop you do not suddenly have the ability to create your own image manipulation suite. What you allege may have been a case here is not feasible. We don't know the details, but I think it exceedingly unlikely that RAZ was alleged to have written their own sim engine, much less that they have done so based on knowledge gleaned from the SDK. Agreed. And I do not think that anyone has claimed that. I think this may be based on a spectacularly wrong interpretation of yours. Allegedly, the discussion is about creating a plug-in based on tech for one of ED's products (DCS) and then selling that plug-in to a customer as a plug-in for another ED product which they were not licensed to do. I'm sure that there is more to this, and outside the legal proceedings surrounding this, nobody knowns. I'm quite sure that nobody accused RAZ of 'white-rooming' ore reverse-engineering the sim engine itself. I fail to see how you may have arrived at that conclusion. Agreed. And I do not think that this particular brouhaha is about that, that anyone alleges RAZ of trying to build their own sim. I believe (not having access to any facts about this) that the spat is about RAZ applying knowledge gained while producing for one of ED licensed products (DCS), they used that knowledge to create a plug-in for another ED product that they are not licensed for. If that can be proven, I agree that RAZ could be in breach of contract (depending entirely on the contract that they did sign). Even if they are not in breach of contract, it's rarely a good idea to try and sell an accessory to a product where the manufacturer of that product is hostile to your business. The entire business plan can collapse with a simple unfriendly patch or modification. Let us hope that there will be some kind of resolution that is helpful for us customers. At this point, the entire proceedings -- and the fact that we know about an internal spat -- is incredibly unprofessional and childish, and IMHO wreaks havoc on both companies' reputation. Which is why I think we should not talk about this - while ignoring my own advice.

I know that you are asking for royalty free music, and although my advice does not cover that, please hear me out. I'm using licensed music and audio for my missions - there is a lot of great aural artwork available, and I support artists by licensing their work, provided that I can use it in my works without further cost. So, for a couple of bucks I can add great audio to my missions, and the artist can get something. I currently own multiple audio libraries (i.e. GB of audio) that I own licenses to include in my missions, and I think it was well worth the cost (big libraries are around USD 20 with unlimited uses). Hailing from the game dev side of the universe, I usually look at the artwork stores in Unity and Unreal first, plus (occasionally) commission work from friends (Torsten's Axe in my "A-10 joyride" mission for example). So, please don't only look at royalty free stuff, also look if acquiring a license for audio may be inside your abilities. It's often worth the shot if you have the means, and the licensing terms are agreeable.

In general, using AI for creating DCS mission scripts at this point in time only works if you already know mission scripting very well. AI do not (yet) understand context, so they are offering up pieces of information filtered through your question. If you know DCS mission scripting well, that can help a lot since you can take the idea presented in the code snippets and make a working whole out of it. If you do not know DCS mission scripting at all, you will not understand what the AI presents you, and it won't work. Now, there are multiple other things that you may want to look at and clear up: You seem to conflate creating and editing a mission - which implies that you first want to create a mission, and then, based on that mission, want to refine the results by editing it. This is of course a sensible approach; still you may want to explore simply editing an existing (created by some other author) mission to discover how the mission was put together, and to learn the tricks of the trade. That's how I started creating missions, and I saved myself a lot of grief learning mission crafting that way. Using an AI chat bot for this is something I haven't tried - maybe it helps have an AI dissect a mission but since AI can't yet understand context, I'm dubious about the prospects. Finally, you seem to have concluded that you need mission scripting to achieve the goals that you envision for your mission. Using AI to tie together a mission and mission scripting *requires* that an AI understands the context of both your question and the missions that it learned from. This is impossible today. At best you can get AI to provide hints on how to script a certain element of a mission, tying these things together is beyond today's AI competencies.

Thank you for your kind words. Wrt StopGaps, it's eye candy over realism - and I'm (unfortunately) a visual kind of guy -- since sg is easy to turn off, I hope you can live with the extra work to remove it

Hmmm. It could be advantageous to think this further through... The CSAR pilot side of this indeed is interesting, and a CSAR mission to evacuate someone can be a great mission. Being the evacuee, though - not so much. You essentially sit around, and wait - say 40 minutes for the rescue helo(s) to arrive (tbh, 40 minutes is unrealistically short). You then get on board, and sit around for another 40 minutes while the helo is RTBing. You may want to pick up a hobby like watching paint dry to train for those missions. Also, the FPS aspect of DCS is quite underdeveloped, and I think it will stay that way for a long time. So you are likely to sit around in really bad scenery for 40 minutes to be picked up and shipped home. Oh, and if present-day enemy DCS AI spots you (a Soldier AK), they are likely to snipe you from 1 mile away. Good times.

It was. The folder name for the theatre map doesn't match up with the theatre name, so I had to patch twn for this. It's a simple patch and now should work: twn.lua

Since all good stories depend on a great villain (even if the real-world persona is more of a wet towel), that role would go to Alan Rickman - the "it's amazing I'm sane" Prince John from Prince of Thieves or "We do it the hard way" Hans Gruber from Die Hard -- kind of irresistibly sinister-yet-fascinating antagonist. Since Alan is no longer with us, I'd also be happy with Gary Oldman's take. And since there are no heroes in this move - who cares about the rest?

Agreed. I've run across a similar issue with Nevada that has a non-ASCII character in a city's name that brought lua2json to a grinding halt. I'll investigate to see what may be the issue here, thanks!

I don't get it. When did a poll ever solve or change something? Let's say I have a rabbit in my hand, and I let my audience vote if it was male of female. The poll shows 98% think it is a female rabbit. Does that change the facts? No, it only keeps the audience busy doing BS stuff like polls. We don't need polls. We need the people who are in responsible positions act - and act responsibly, maybe even in favour of their customers.

You control which helicopters are accepted for CSAR missions with the 'troopCarriers' attribute in the csarManagerConfig zone troopCarriers A list of helicopter types that are allowed to carry/rescue troops in this mission. Defaults to DCS Common’s list of troop carriers (which is usually Mi-8MT, UH-1H, Mi-24P), but you can provide your own list (for example to add non-official types). Example: “Mi-8MT, UH-1H, SA342Minigun” removes the Hind and adds the Gazelle in Minigun configuration to the list of legal troop carriers. Supports wildcard type endings: if a type ends on an asterisk (“*”) all types that match whatever precedes the asterisk are accepted. For example, “Mi-*” will match both “Mi-8T” and “Mi-24P”. You can supply the type ‘helos’ to allow all player helicopters (including unofficial Mods like Blackhawk) to carry troops. You can supply the type ‘any’ or ‘all’ to allow all player aircraft to carry troops. Default <none> (use dcsCommon’s list of troop carriers) Please be advised that the autoCSAR module does not provide the CSAR services, it merely automatically creates a CSAR mission for a pilot that successfully ejects.

Can you (after removing all mods should they be in there) please allow me to look at the miz? The changes are new, and I'm sure I may have missed something.

Hmmmm. I had a quick look at the miz that you kindly attached. Using Comms -> F10 Other->Kill does not kill anything You do not seem to be using DML to spawn the units. You are using RND to trigger a trigger rule that activates a late activation group. I recommend using a cloner for each, and trigger each of the cloners using RND. Although you can mix old-school trigger rules with DML, DML often has much better, easier tools ready for you to use.

I went with something very similar: use a 'recon' zone, and now it also collects static objects inside that zone. I've slightly changed the semantics of the recon attribute value - it still defaults to 'prio' and now you can add something other than 'black' or 'prio' to indicate non-prio/blacklisted. So if you want to add a static object to recon, and do not want it to be a priority target, simply add something other than a word starting with "black" or "prio" as value, and you are set. Preliminary version and demo miz below. Note: requires updated version of cfxZones. Enjoy, -ch reconMode.lua cfxZones.lua demo - recon mode - reloaded.miz And here's the updated info from the doc: recon Marks all ground groups that have at least one unit inside the zone or static objects inside this zone as recon relevant. Furthermore, · if the value for this attribute starts with “black” all groups that have at least one unit inside this zone are added to the blacklist · if the value for this attribute starts with “prio”, all groups that have at least one unit inside this zone are added to the priority list. If such a group / static object is spotted the module’s prio! output is triggered. · if the value is neither “black” nor “prio”, the units inside are neither priority targets nor blacklisted yet can generate the reconMessage and output signals when spotted. Defaults to “prio” – all groups / static objects inside this zone are priority targets. Additionally, if a priority target is spotted, a signal is sent over the modules ‘prio!’ output. MANDATORY

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.