cfrag

What is that GetDevice() method? Can you perhaps link to its description? Is it perhaps part of a framework? I can't recall that method being part of the Mission Scripting Environment (MSE) - which may be the root cause of your issue

Agreed. I would love to have this become a setting in Mission Editor: Instant Repair checkbox. It's completely unrealistic anyway (3 minutes or 3 seconds or instant), so let the mission designer decide if they want this arbitrary element of annoyance.

Not in current DCS.

Set up a trigger rule to activate when you deem the mission done, use the "Picture to all" action and you are done.

Version 20250111 - Initial Release Download: (here - ED User Files) Save evacuees at sea! A fire has broken out on "GeOil Empress II", a gas platform some 10 nautical miles off the coast west of Batumi. There is personnel requesting emergency evacuation, so you and your crew are ordered to take your helicopter (Huey, Hip, Hind or Hook, others can be added easily), land on the burning platform, and rescue as many groups of Evacuees as you can. Return them to the reception and triage point at Batumi's airfield near the green smoke. Note: If you find this mission to be too easy, try turning on fog. If you manage 'Pea Soup', you are ready for some of my other helicopter rescue missions. This mission is entirely non-violent and features live civilian helicopter traffic, optional fog, and a mission log (persistent if enabled) that logs your time in the various airframes. Comms: There is an emergency locator beacon active on "GeOil Empress II" (at 121.5 MHz). Batumi TCN is 16X, Batumi TWR 131.0 MHz Weather: Winds: 0kts Clouds: CAVOK (player-option: fog with variable visibilities) Mission Tinkerers: Although I created this mission for Hueys, Hinds, Hips and Hooks, it is pre-configured to automatically work with other helicopters, including mods like a Blackhawk or Loach. Simply add them with Mission Editor. Enjoy, -ch

The Yak-52 has gone 7 years without becoming final, and with no damage model to speak of... And what is the intended timeline for finalizing the Viggen? It's also 7 years since I purchased it in EA.

Let's just say that should I ever sit in a real fighter plane, something really, really wrong has happened already. That being said, although I own all maps, I detect a distinct pattern: most played maps for me are Caucasus (performance), Syria and Sinaï (simply great maps, but performance is killing my rig until that dang 5090 finds its way into my home). And, strangely, I really like South America - something with the light, I suppose. Kola leaves me cold. "Halfghanistan" and "Iraq" are simply more "dust map" to me, with nothing (no personal attachment) to keep me. NTTR bores me to tears, and after I landed my Hind at the alien inn, I got nothing good to do there. Paris and London kill my VR performance, but Normy 2 will come to my "twilight zone helicopter missions" once my new rig is ready. And I hate the primitive SOH "Persia" map ever since I laid eyes on Syria, that "new lighting model" be damned. I'm old, I fly daylight.

When I say "promise" I'm not talking about a legally binding, enforceable contract. I'm talking about a loose understanding made in mutual trust and respect. For example, when ED state on their home page that, with regards to how long EA would last they tell me I fully accept 'as short as possible' to have a loose meaning and I contend that it includes goodwill on both sides. They already have mine: I purchased. It's like a friend telling me "if you ever need help, call me at any time, and I'll be there for you". It's a non-binding understanding of mutual trust and respect: I won't call for silly things, and my friend reliably has my back in times of need. Now, some friends are good to their word, others... After more than 5 years of waiting for some EA modules that I purchased to improve, with ED it feels like I've called them, and they weren't there for me. It's not the end of the world, but disappointing. I lose trust in them, perhaps some respect too. We are still friendly. And I wish that we could return to the time when I felt that their word had some worth. I'm hoping that the implied (and unenforceable) promise of "as short as possible" may become something meaningful. To me, ED's "as short has possible" now is an empty phrase, just marketing speak - devoid of meaning. I'm hopeful that ED can fill this void and I'm hopeful that they start now, in 2025.

TBH, I think that they are compatible, just not very intuitive. I can visit Rome and the Colosseum today and be reminded of its history and the many tragedies and fights that happened in the past there, and the historical importance it played. Now, if you wanted to accurately re-enact some historical event concerning the Colosseum of antiquity, I agree that modern-day Rome wouldn't be as well suited as, say, a replica of Rome from AD 50. And I believe that is wat you mean - that it would have been preferable to have the SinaÏ map based on the 1970-1980 era if we wanted to re-enact the many important conflicts of that time. I agree. IMHO, what ORT said was not contradictory; it merely is marketing to sugarcoat a drawback. Most maps in DCS are similar in that regard - usually because it's a) very difficult to accurately depict maps from an era where no or too little accurate data exists, and b) if the map was too era-specific that would lock out other uses (accurate helicopter missions in Normy 2? Unfortunately no). If there is going to be a Fulda-Gap (late 50s- early 80s) map, or a Vietnam Map (mid-50 to mid 70), the map creators face the same conundrum, especially since some of DCS most popular modules (Viper, Bug, Flanker) are 80s and younger (with cold warriors finally (!) becoming more popular, and younger aircraft like Typhoon emerging). So they compromise on an in-between map and use more easily accessible (low-cost) grid and model data. Since I'm primarily interested in fun over historical accuracy, I don't mind too much, yet I do see the missed opportunities.

Which reminds me of a German proverb: "Lord, give me patience - NOW!"

Probably. I’m used to groups being on freq A on com 1 to talk to each other in the group, and use a common freq B to talk between groups. So yeah, I can see that for some mission designs being on the same main freq can make things easier. I’m using common names for that (e.g. all groups of strike package 1 start with ‚alpha‘), and using frequencies to sort them simply did not occur to me. So yeah, we could have the freq box (that is loosely tied to the player‘s coms) as one way to sort. Just because I don’t use it doesn’t mean it does not have merit. Looking at the myriad of coms that player planes can have, I simply wasn’t sure of this function‘s usefulness, and I’m still afraid of how the kind folk at ED may implement this.

It looks as if you are trying to load that guy into a Gazelle. That's not a troop transport by default. Also make sure that its type is among the loadables

I hear that swinging a dead cat thrice around your head at midnight may help. This is, unfortunately, a long-standing disappointment with ED, and their lack of enthusiasm in supporting customers and content creators. The link you are using (mr. skortch) is the best we have, and it's again a privately maintained -- thank you!). You may be lucky finding the Stinger in the "Air Defense" folder: https://github.com/mrSkortch/DCS-miscScripts/blob/master/ObjectDB/Air Defense/Stinger manpad GRG.lua

While I think that I understand that desire from a mission designer's point of view (and since this is a wish list, all wishes are good), I wonder about the practicality. There are many airframes that have different radios, UHF, VHF, and some have redundant radios. Which brings up the question: if you list units 'by frequency', which radio has precedence over others? What do you list by? How do FM and AM figure in? What are the rules that govern such a sort algorithm? ME is already riddled with abysmally bad UX, and I think that I can live without yet another rule that nobody understands except those who implemented them. With DCS' ME we also have the exacerbating problem that those who implement ME are far removed from those who actually use it (else interface as hellishly broken as that for 'band select' or 'line art' would never have seen the light of day).

Well, perhaps not LL dec, but MGRS or other (range, bearing) is already possible and implemented. What is the use case that you are looking for? What are you trying to achieve? Here are the wildcards defined for the "who" and "what" attributes in the jtacGrpUI config zone · <u> : name of the unit · <g> : name of the group · <p> : name of player controlling that unit (only when that unit is commanded by a player using Combined Arms, “AI” otherwise) · <typ> : type of the unit · <c> or <C> : coalition of that unit (lower and UPPER case) · <e> or <E> : enemy coalition for that unit )lower and UPPER case) · <twn> : name of closest town on map to that unit (requires ‘twn’ module) · <twnkm> : name, distance (in km) and direction from nearest town (requires ‘twn’ module) · <twnnm> : name, distance (in nautical miles) and direction from nearest town (requires ‘twn’ module) · <lat> : latitude of unit · <lon> : longitude of unit · <elem> : elevation of unit in meters · <eleft> : elevation of unit in feet · <bea> : bearing of unit to player requesting report · <rng> : range (in km) of unit to player requesting report · <rngnm> : range (in nm) of unit to player requesting report · <code> : laser code used to lase target

That is interesting - perhaps we need to align our expectations. Below please find a miz that puts an orange, blue and green smoke in front of a player-controlled frogfoot (free plane) In my DCS install it's colored smoke from script, and looks very much like the smoke from the colored phosphorous round. What do you get? Perhaps post an image or show the code you are using that results in a haze. haze or smoke.miz

Trigger.action.smoke() is the correct effect, as used in ME. You may want to adjust for terrain elevation by using land.getHeight, else most of your smoke is below the terrain.

“Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense”

They'll be in the next release, I'm busy documenting and testing them. Doing this required massive changes to dcsCommon as well, so there's a lot of new stuff to come.

So below is a multiple proof of concept miz for you to play around (and perhaps report bugs) that showcases laser codes per spawner customizable lasing report with wildcard support heloTroops that support individual laser codes and (yes) drivable spawned units. Preserving drivable requires that the units are spawned from a spawner. Have fun, -ch demo - lazie troops.miz

Yeah, that 'drivable' attribute does not carry over via DCS API, and therefore gets lost. Let me see if I can find a fix, but do not get your hopes up.

Screw the Blackhawk, I want "Helicopter 66". I remember nights spent before the TV with my parents, waiting for the "moon capsule" to water-down. Helicopter 66 is what fascinated me most, what an absolutely iconic aircraft.

ED aren't youtubers that put out some shoddy content every day. Production quality of those ED videos is much higher, and I wager that just finalizing the video takes more than two weeks. An educated guess: a video production project like this runs 3 months plus: from the definition of the message, over storyboarding, production of "b" footage, main footage, music composition/selection/licensing, audio recording (ED Nick has a cool voice, yes, but there little chance that he can do that in a single, 1h session), audio mixing, to post/mastering. 3 Months seems tight to me, so yeah, let's hope that they hit the 16th. This video is going to be viewed by millions and impacts their reputation directly. Worse, the footage will be dissected frame-by-frame and analyzed by certified nutcases like me that hang around here, just waiting for a single mis-rendered blend that "obviously" confirms half-life 3. And yeah, I'm looking forward to that video, too.

Well, I can certainly try and add it. Just to be sure - you'd like the lasing team give coordinates of the target, correct? And probably in MGRS, right? I'll see if I can retroactively make the lasing report be made of wildcards similar to messenger so it is designer-customizable. Will probably take some time.

Thank you for following up on this, @Flappie. I just checked (just some spot-checking), an now the menus do seem to be correctly present in dedicated server. Cheers, -ch