cfrag

Maybe also read the mic. The louder you scream, the further the deflection? May not be the brightest idea, but I'd pay good money to see people try to use it...

Indeed. More importantly, how many of us WANT an accurate simulation? There are so many annoyances and RL restrictions that I do not want in a game. DCS is for entertainment. I can do without restrooms being installed at the start and end of a flight. Same for restaurants. hour-long METAR briefings and debriefings Bottle-to-Throttle 8 hours (yikes! -- 8 inches in DCS for me) Demotions/demerits for not following procedures Flights cancelled because the bird wasn't flightworthy Bad weather when I wanted good weather Waiting 2 hours for a slot. In a hot cockpit. With the engine off (no A/C) because some jerk decreed that we want to be more environmental friendly. Getting yelled at because being at an unfamiliar airfield -- and Junior found your Jeppesens last night and took them to bed with him Failing a medical and being grounded for 4 months Getting too old for g-loads, and just sitting in the cramped cockpit hurts Knowing that out there are Jerks who want to kill you. Literally. With missiles and stuff. Luckily we are so far removed from reality in DCS that flying again is a joyous event. We don't want reality. We want entertainment. With some semblance (a veneer, really) of reality. I don't bother so much whether the experience is realistic. It shouldn't be. It mustn't be. It should be fun. So yeah. Hit me with a fantasy Fat Amy or Superflank. And make it fun!

I don't think that that will create any issues with the miz.

It's certainly possible, but I think it'll mess with the GUI. I'll see what I can do for a simple solution.

Version 1.70 - 20250128 -- Major Update, Support for CA I recommend that you delete old save files before starting an updated mission. All Changes: major DML core update support for CA added 4 operators droppable CA-controllable units (AA) blue convoys now contain CA-drivable enabled ground unit control for all pilots added lase units to Nal, Moz, Bes and all FARP for infantry helicopter deployments added jtac status report added AA troops to Beslan plane guard upgrade (carrier) Enjoy, -ch

Ooops. Try this please: pulseFlags.lua

Ah. This is one of the most heartfelt wishes of many of us mission creators. Alas, we should be so lucky. DCS MIssion Editor lamentably is 2D only, and generally hates you. There is an independently created "Web Editor" (see here, no affiliation except being a happy user) that plans a 3D feature.

I'm not sure that I understand the question. When you launch Mission Editor, you choose which map to work on, or open an existing mission which tells Mission Editor which map to load. What is your question?

There's a manual that comes with DML, with detailed information for each attribute for each zone.

Based on the persistence data (and modules that load after persistence), DCS allocates all units/groups that were alive when the last successful save was made. DML tries to match some units (in unitPersistence) with groups placed with ME. Other modules (especially cloners and spawners) record all their surviving spawns to persistence to allow re-spawning their units later. Upon mission start, persistence can (if at the point of save the mission had spawned many groups) create a lot of groups/units. If persistence saved some units that require mods and that were subsequently removed from the mission, the results are undefined, as persistence passes allocation and handling of these groups/units to DCS. What DCS does with such spawn requests is anyone's guess, especially if removal of the mods was only partial. IMHO, when you edit a mission, I recommend that you remove the entire (data) folder before you start the mission anew so that persistence can start with a clean slate.

Not with loading world textures, no. Your computer may be running into memory issues, though. IIRC the new fog and enabling wind will greatly kick up memory requirements, especially in Syria. Textures not loading, or loading very slowly is very often related to tight memory conditions.

None. Mission scrips can’t influence world textures.

I do not think so. Destroying them immediately can serve to suppress some visual artifacts. Still, missiles can be re-targeted in-flight, and only if they target a protected airframe will GA kick in and remove the missile.

I do not want to be the odd one out, but I think that when a company wants to get new customers that they should put their best foot forward. Admittedly, that Froggfoot may not be the best of planes, and the UX for new customers leaves a lot to be desired. Combined Arms, however, leaves a lot to be desired. Non-standard interface, hates VR (where DCS truly shines), silly driving physics, abysmal controls, and decidedly lackluster graphics. People can discover CA though the two weeks trial, and I'm always hopeful that people get hooked to DCS before they experience CA, lest it scares them away. But, again, YMMV.

As long as it's a DOSCRIPT it is always possible to trace back the error, and that is why I strongly advocate using it in missions. Only if you use DOSCRIPTFILE it gets ugly. Here's a quick update that I did not yet have the time to regression test yet, but should work. unitZone.lua They are a result from persistence complaining bitterly that you removed stuff that it carefully put in store - just for you! It should have not further consequences.

I'm modifying GA now so that a unit can carry it's 'angelic' zone with it, and other planes that are inside the zone are protected from missiles fired at it after it enters the zone. This will not prevent the units from being seen, nor (which I believe to be the bigger issue) the SAM sites winchestering.

Because they all need to be close together? What is the problem arising in MP? This looks like a good idea to base the on/off switch for Guardian Angel. The Growlers could get permanent protection, the one plane only gets protection if it manages to fly in such a way that the other two planes are inside a trigger zone/radius. The biggest problem I see with GA is that the SAM sites will soon be out of missiles and unable to fire at the middle plane - GA isn't simulating jamming, but simply vanishing the missiles that are fired.

You know, at some point your tantalizing posts cross over into outright cruelty...

Possibly. And it likely was just a convenient way to say "no". Methinks that without a steady, secure income stream -- taking the path less well travelled will often bite you in business -- ED urgently need a hit product. The Mossie and Hook likely did not meet their income targets, and their last "hit" product (after Viper and Hornet) was the Apache (evidence: they receive the most attention and are arguably the only products still in active development). "Freebies" like ATC, Dynamic Campaign don't make money, and are 'forever WIP'. So (again arguably) ED have to switch to "lower-standard" products: cases in point: Afghanistan and Iraq map (IMHO sub-par products, too hastily pushed out to customers). We now see a somewhat obvious attempt at creating the next "crowd-pleaser", a cash-grab so to speak. Is that bad? Well, it'll be on a lot of 'fantasy tech'. To me, it helps shutting up those annoying "sim not game" rivet-counters. Overall, you, I, and all customers will be the judge. IMHO, if it helps ED to financially bridge the gap for the next 2 years, I don't mind so much. Then again, I'd be happy to pay a sub for 'DCS prime' (or similar) that secures an independent income stream for ED, and I will buy Fat Amy if that helps my favorite flight game moving along. I wish it were different, but that's what market reality can do to your production lineup.

That would rather depend on how you implement it. Guardian angel simply vanishes the missile by invoking weapon.destroy() with the option to add a small visual explosion at the interpolated location. I really don't know. Perhaps it would help if you described what you are trying to achieve in mission terms (e.g. prevent a missile from attacking a certain aircraft, or prevent missiles from killing units that are inside a zone). I'm sure that the rest can then be worked out. If you want to go "commando-style" on the script yourself, I can give you some pointers, and the rest would then be up to you.

Yes. Seems straightforward enough. Check at launch if target, missile and launcher meet the criteria. Please be advised that I do not support modified DML scripts.

Perhaps have a look at the "GuardianAngel" module in DML.

For the past 20 years, at least, sure.

... and the Elephant in the room: Undo.

Stop talking and start chalking! This money in my hand doesn't spend itself, you know???