cfrag

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???

Perhaps PlayerScore's "feat" system can do that for you? Phrased differently: what is in the Feat system that impedes you? If you need just some personalization, the valet module can work wonders.

With the right offer, sure. It's business, after all. If that offer is financially viable for ED may be a different matter I believe this to be the salient point - not to mention the fact that if you are in litigation and then make an offer to purchase the object of your litigation, the price that you offered becomes part of the process, and it opens you up to accusations that you started litigation only to drive down the price. So, while an outright purchase is a hypothetical, I don't think it to be that probable - especially after ED announced their own FF "C" version -- and the egos involved on both sides are also not conductive to a quick resolution (the fact that we know about this sordid affair is to the detriment of everyone involved; it should have never left the meeting rooms of ED/RB. It laid bare some childish, amateurish behavior on both sides and did nothing to resolve the conflict).

Indeed. Plus, we need API support within the app through events: there should be at least the events: "about to save", "saving", "saving complete" and "about to load", "loading" and "load finished"

Actually, that is one of my biggest misgivings. We know it won't. It'll languish in EA forever, receiving some minor tweaks while the next big thing (e.g. Raptor) is readied. And that is my other big concern. ED suck at creating good content. And content is what Fat Amy needs. Mission creators currently have very little to work with here to create good missions for the F-35 (single-player), and nothing to work with in multiplayer. DCS needs a full-blown update for AI units to give mission designers something to work with: opponents, support, infrastructure, heck even maps. And initially there'll be few servers that would allow the F-35 to fly, simply because it'll introduce so much imbalance. Hopefully that will be in impetus for ED to improve the core. Historically, that is not where ED shine. Here's to hoping that ED upgrade everything to 2010 level so the F-35 can get some good missions. Else, it is going to be a sterile experience indeed. And I want to create good Amy missions. Currently, I don't have anything in DCS to do so.

I'm slow on the uptake today. Didn't clue in on an obvious troll. Remedied. Apologies to all.

I believe that is a supremely silly question. ED know that there is immense buyer potential in an F-35 module. People want iconic planes, and things that go boom. And they want to dominate. What better module to sell them than Fat Amy? Whatever existing players/customers think is completely irrelevant to ED - they live and die on a one-off sales structure. Past sales are yesterday, let's focus on the tomorrow! It makes a lot of financial sense to sell this module even if it makes the majority of the existing user base blue in the face. And it's also easy to predict what module is likely to be next: the Raptor or F-117. DCS is a game, and this new module will hopefully finally shut up those annoying rivet-counting pretentious Holier-Than-Thoughs that look down their winkled nose, proclaiming that "DCS is a simulator, not a game". It always was a game, and the F-35 to them is what the "Final Experiment" is to flat earthers: the end of their little make-belief world. Welcome to the real world. And you know what? If it's fun, it's good. DCS is a game. So, am I happy about the F-35? Not really. But more importantly: who gives a damn what I think? It makes financial sense to ED; check mate.

"Witness my perfection" Still to do: support "attachTo:" playerScoreUI.lua

... which pretty much proves that you have no experience in the field of programming that you are advising. Above sounds a bit like a web page designer giving a host programmer advice on how best to improve their batch processing. If you want to experience just one of the issues that you IMHO somewhat blithely skipped, write a program to bring up a loading screen in VR. Yeah, you'll soon experience the render-space catch-22 that is one of the many reasons why so many mixed-mode games wait until their graphics engine is fully initialized before they enable their VR renderer. Ah. On a personal note, purely judging by your demo art, I think that your choice of font alone disqualifies you from giving any gaming UX advice... <duck>

Although I believe that the CA module leaves a lot to be desired (I find the UX abysmal, VR is broken, physics are laughable), I'm hoping that eventually, CA evolves into something better than a module that constantly evokes the likeness of a sullen temp who finishes their job unwillingly. One of the issues that I've run into is that I can't find an up to date reference on which units currently can be player-controlled. Since just bitching about this is too easy, here's the result of some hours of work trying to put together a list of units that can be controlled by the player through CA. If you find a unit that is missing from this list, please be so kind and comment here so I can add it to the list. My hope is that we can put together a complete list of CA units for everyone to use as a reference. CA player-controlled vehicles: AAA Bofors 40mm AAA Flak 38 AAA Flak Vierling 38 AAA M1 37mm AAA M45 Quadmount HB AAA ZU-23 Emplacement Closed AAA ZU-23 Emplacement AAA Zu-23 Emplacement Insurgent Closed AAA Zu-23 Emplacement Insurgent Ammo M30 Cargo Carrier APC AAV-7 APC BTR-80 APC BTR-RD APC M-113 APC M2A1 Halftrack APC MTLB APC Sd.Kfz.251 Halftrack APC TPz Fuchs ATGM HMMWV ATGM Stryker ATGM VAB Mephisto Bunker with Fire Control Car Daimerl Armored Car Willys Jeep Fire Fighter Vehicle AA Grad MRL FDDM HQ-7 LN (Player) IFV BMD-1 IFV BMP-1 IFV BMP-2 IFV BMP-3 IFV BTR-82A IFV LAV-25 IFV M1126 Stryker IFV M2A2 Bradley IFV Marder IFV Warrior LUV HMMWV Jeep LUV Horch 901 LUV Kettenrad LUV Kubelwagen Jeep LUV Land Rover LUV Tigr LUV UAZ Jeep M92 B600 drivable M92 Mj-1 drivable M92 P20 drivable M92 R11 Volvo drivable M92 Tug Harlan drivable MANPADS SA-18 Igla Grouse MANPADS SA-18 Igla-S Grouse MANPADS Stinger MBT Chieftain MBT Leclerc MBT Leopard 1A3 MBT Leopard-2A4 MBT Leopard 2A4Trs MBT Leopard 2A5 MBT Leopard 2A6M MBT M1A2 Abrams MBT M60A3 Patton MBT Merkava IV MBT T-55 MBT-T-72B MBT-T-80U MBT-T-90 MLRS 9A52 Smerch CM MLRS 9A52 Smerch HE MLRS 9K57 Uragan MLRS BM-21 Grad MLRS FDDM MLRS HL MLRS LC MLRS M270 MT Tyoe 59 PLZ 05 Refueler ATZ-5 Refueler ATZ-60 Tractor Refueler TZ-22 Tractor S-75 Tractor SAM Avenger (Stinger) SAM Chaparral SAM Linebacker SAM Roland ADS SAM SA-8 Osa Gecko SAM SA 9 Strela Gaskin SAM SA 13 Strela Gopher SAM SA 15 Tor Gauntlet SAM SA 19 Tunguska Grison Scout BRDM-2 Scout Cobra Scout HL with DSHK Scout HL with KORD Scout HMMWV Scout LC with DSHK Scout LC with KORD Scout M8 Greyhound Scout Puma SL Flakscheinwerfer (?) SPAA Gepard -- NO LONGER SPAA HL with ZU-23 SPAA LC with ZU-23 SPAA Vulcan SPAA ZSU-23-4 Shilka Gun Dish SPAA ZSU-57-2 SPAA ZU-23-2 Mounted Ural 375 SPG Brummbaer SPG Elefant SPG Jagdpanther SPG Jagdpanzer IV SPG M10 SPG Stryker MGS SPG StuG III SPG StuG IV SPH 2S1 Gvozdika SPH 2S3 Akatsia SPH 2S19 Msta SPH Dana SPH M109 Paladin SPH Sd,Kfz,124 Wespe SPH T155 Firtina SPM 2S9 Nona Tk Centaur IV Tk Churchill VII Tk Cromwell IV Tk M4 Sherman Tk M4A4 Sherman Firefly Tk Panther Tk PzIV Tk Tetrach Tk Tiger 1 Tk Tiger 2 Tractor M4 High Speed Truck Bedford Truck Jimmy 6x6 Truck KrAZ-6322 Truck Land Rover Truck M939 Heavy Truck Opel Blitz Truck Ural-375 Truck ZIL-135 ZBD-04A ZTZ-96B Enjoy, -ch

Ah, that's playerScoreUI, and I'm still working on that. But at least CA units now can contribute to the score, which is important for adding funds to the bank (it'll soon flow over to "Expansion", once we complete tests). Give me some more hours to make the details accessible from ScoreUI, and with some luck, we'll all be happy

Try this (see below), and please report back any bugs. Any player in a CA unit now immediately banks points when destroying other units. playerScore.lua