cfrag

That helped a lot. It seems that I overlooked that one for a long time (it requires useOffset AND that you linked the units using ME's LINKUNIT instead of the "linkedUnit" to become problematic). Below please find an updated zones module that should correct the issue. cfxZones.lua

It means a failed attempt at humor on my part. Adding the scooter is exceedingly easy.

I did not put any community-mod planes into Marianas (lazy, I know ) That rather depends on how comfortable you are with ME. If you have added aircraft before, I'd say it'll take you about 20 seconds, plus the time required to write the miz back to storage.

20241218 - 2024 Year's end update And so it goes... This update adds fog control to DML. Changes in detail Documentation Manual - Fogger (new) - Foggy bottoms demo (new) - small updates Quickref - Fogger (new) Demos - Foggy Bottoms (new) Modules - cloneZones 2.5.1 - deprecated f? and in? - fogger 1.0.0 - initial release - playerScore 5.0.1 - code hardening Enjoy, -ch

Hmmm. Have you checked the "Air Defenses" folder? There seem to be a couple of NASAM objects in there. The Hercules Module isn't released, AFAIK. I sincerely hope that there will be an API for that. Maybe ED can work something in there so there is a common API/Ux for cargo aircraft like the Hook, Hip, Herc etc. And hopefully something better than that atrocious and silly thing that's currently in the game for the Hook.

Thank you. I believe I caught the error, please try below update. Still needs some regression testing, and I think I can dragoon you into that playerScore.lua

Certainly. F/A/18, F-14, F-4 (is that carrier-capable in DCS?), Su-33

Oh, great - and thank you so much for reporting this issue. I'll try and get to the bottom of this, so if you have a short demo mission for me to re-produce the issue, that would help greatly. That being said, I *believe* that recently there where changes with the new aircrew patch on super carriers where you no longer can place units/objects because reasons. (I did not yet have the time to check this, currently I'm mostly flying rotorwings). If anyone has a link to the new 'allowed parking' zones for SC, I think that would help me.

As (currently) a Rotörhead (as my godson loves to call it after he discovered some of Lemmy's ditties in my audio archive), I took to some low-level flying over Iraq. VR performance in the Huey and Hip was OK (although my rig is getting old, I'm now waiting for the 5-beast from Nvidia to release), the Kiowas acceptable, in the Hook it was problematic (although I attribute that to the Hook). The (probably) sat-imagery derived ground textures take a bit of getting used to; to my eyes, many objects like hangars, buildings etc. stick out like sore thumbs against the ground textures (an effect I first noticed with the SA map). In all, though, I think that the map has potential, and I have to take a closer look at the locations to find some engaging parts where I can set up some fun missions. Sadly, Mosul currently does not have an airfield, not even a heliport. Worse, not a single "H" was evident on the entire map, not even, sadly, for hospitals), so lacking the infrastructure, Iraq seems a bit to be a rotorhead wasteland to me (contrast that with Syria, which added 120 heloports just in the last update). Compared to Afghanistan, I think that Iraq feels a bit more balanced, and the color palette doesn't appear as washed-out ("bleached"), the mountain range textures in Iraq when travelling close to the ground don't appear quite as pixellated, although some of the deep shadows from the sat imagery still translate to dark blotches that simply look bad and unconvincing. In short, I hope that that this map improves - it has potential, and it is good to have it as it hosted some of the most intense conflicts in recent history. Currently, it's not yet a 'chopper map', Syria and Sinai are much better suited right now for that. In a Hog, some ground texture issues also become evident, but not as pronounced as in a rotorwing. Jet jocks don't get themselves dirty, and I'm sure their view is nicer up there where the air is rare. Us low level Angels need a bit more sugar, though. It'll be interesting to see how the Iraq map improves over the next months.

That might work if each server was hosting a mission for only a single player. Even if that was possible, it would also have to mess with player log-in (on return vs initial start) to assign the plane, of which there would have to be two: one to start the entire mission, one for return. That looks incredibly messy, even if it was possible to implement. Having two servers wait on on a single player also looks very wasteful. And how would server A handle a situation if the player was downed on server B? DCS player slot handling is bad enough as it is today, I don't think that making it more complex would make it better.

I think it could be helpful if you showed the "message" attribute (I'm assumung that you are using messenger) in it's raw form, and then perhaps tell us what you expect the output to be

Off the top of my head, a coupe of possible reasons come to mind the airbase may not be in possession of the coalition the airbase may not have a free parking lot of sufficient size the airbase may not be an airbase the AI is wonky and feels that you should suffer

While seething with envy to your specs, I found out that one setting for my (much lesser) rig did wonders in VR (and VR only): I found that setting LOD Switch Factor to 0.4 immensely boosted fps (but I'm also running on lowered settings for many other settings, and my max FPS is fixed at 45, half of my HMD's refresh -- running a Vive Pro 2)

Because good always requires time. Anyone can do bad quickly. Good means care. And care takes time. And time is precious. That being said I think that providing a couple of nice, "inspirational" missions with a map could do wonders for the community to help their mission creators to get their creative juices flowing. Such a 'instigator' map could highlight the interesting parts of a map - because finding a good, interesting place for a mission takes a *lot* of time, and the map creators could help their map become more popular if there were more missions available.

You, sir, apparently do not live in Antarctica That being said, a good friend of mine hails from Bodø, and yes, she regularly takes a swim in Salzfjord during Summer. Refreshing indeed. Obviously, I know my way around ME, but few other in the group I fly with do, so it is entirely imaginable that people don't know ME - nor care. Missions are what is in their folder.

Unfortunately, yes. Yes, but not with current DCS. Game-wise I suspect that the game engine needs the FARP to create the comms menu at the location to be able to command the infrastructure to refuel and rearm player's aircraft. I know that there was some experimental scripted dynamically spawning FARPs in the past year, but without reserving them first, I *believe* that to still be a no-go. A bit disappointing since I was trying to bring some 'fat cow' scenarios to DCS. Right now I think that ad-hoc refueling in DCS is not possible.

Since the OH 6 isn't an official DCS aircraft, I can't look it up. It would be the "TypeName" attribute for the unit in the mission. For example, the Kiowa's typeName is "OH-58D". You could try opening a mission that contains an OH-6 and copy that name from the mission. From there it'll be only a few seconds until CSAR accepts the 6.

I believe that creating missions is a creative act that improves with practice - much like playing an instrument. And of course by playing other people's missions, and taking note of what you like and (more importantly) dislike you can become inspired. Most of all, though, you should enjoy creating missions. So if you have the time, see if you also have the inclination, if creating missions is fun for you. Be advised, though, that DCS's Mission Editor will fight you - hard, and it will never love you. It probably helps if you can derive fun from being able to create fun missions in spite of ME. Become comfortable working in ME, know its limitations, bugs, pitfalls and other idiosyncrasies. Because they are legion. There are some tools available that can make some tasks writing missions easier. I'm using DML, and many other exist. These tools won't magically endow you with mission-creation abilities, they merely make some aspects of your work easier - just like a good brush multiplies a painter's potential. I recommend that you start with simple ideas, and create simple, fun missions. They should be fun to create and fun to fly. Then, when you feel comfortable, broaden the scope of your missions, and experiment and choose from the available tools to reduce the amount of work and multiply your abilities. So I think that the best place to start is ED's User Files section, where you can find many small, fun missions. Study them, see how it's done. And notice that a lot can be done without scripting. Now, Expansion is heavily scripted, so obviously there will come a point at which you may want to look into that. Some tools do not require that the mission editors script themselves, others do. No matter what, if you enjoy crafting missions, there's lots of frustration, and (if you are lucky) even more joy ahead. Have fun!

I *think* that those attributes are handled by the csarFX module that I wrote to extend CSAR missions. So if you copy/paste that module, you should be able to add the baddies to any CSAR mission, yes. The csarFX module is 100% DML compatible (it's written as such, and if I get the around to write the docs, it'll become a 'full' DML module). Until then, I'm afraid that you'll have to guess what the attributes do, but I don't think that your guesses will be wide misses

I like the idea, and I'm still looking for a good way to implement that in DML. Currently, there is no such functionality, and I'm hoping that I have some time (and enough wine) over the coming three weeks to look at this more thoroughly. I was hoping that DCS's API extensions for the Hook and Dynamic Spawn abilities would bring something to the table, but it seems that I was a bit optimistic. Let's see what I can come up with

I'm not sure that there is such a function for ME, for the simple reason that multiple planes can be controlled by a player. If you want to find planes that can be player-controlled, your best bet would be to open the Units panel, and sort the units by Skill. Look for 'Client' and "player", and click on the unit. The screen should center on the unit that you just selected.

Agreed. And they very much underline the issue. Younger modules that do not sell as well do not receive updates, simply because the business case requires investing into he cash cows, and let the (unfinished, EA) paid modules that do no longer sell well enough languish. Cases in point: YAK, Mossie, SC, Hind, NTTR, Afghanistan ... Agreed. In business, though, no money doesn't fix anything. Funds are the lifeblood, and that explains why so many modules seem to be slowly dying. Assuredly so if this is handled wrongly. I do not claim to have the perfect solution, or even a solution. I'm merely interpolating from where we are today, feeling worried. My investment into DCS (all models, all terrains, all tech, two rented community servers) is substantial. And I would like to see DCS flourish.

I understand that you are trying to talk up your video review on YT -- and I think that this forum is perhaps the wrong place to do so. In the interest of bettering everything DCS, please allow me some comments as to why I think that your writings come across as a bit low-effort: Because.... ? You say so? IMHO, that is pretty much what everyone expects from a surface mesh, and hardly new. What is the new, unparalleled tech that you speak of and how is that evidenced? Except what is not. Which is a lot. I recommend that you avoid empty expressions. What does that mean? More importantly: above doesn't say if that is good or bad. My godson has cooked some food in ways that I have never seen before. It was also exceedingly awful. So it's 3 years old. I think it a bit ironic that you should say that, considering that four words later you write and on, and on. Too many empty, IMHO meaningless, phrases, which makes me believe that the only reason that you posted here was to push your YT channel: I recommend that you realize that you also put your best foot forward in the description of your video. I am sure that your written contribution does not represent your full abilities, that you can do a lot better. I also think that you like the map, and I think that it is good that you post that opinion. For the record, I have purchased the map (for the full 70 USD on Steam), so you do not have to convince me.

Coming from ED, that’s almost cosmically ironic. Well, I did purchase for 70, so I’m interested to hear if us early customers get the difference refunded.

Agreed. I'm looking forward to you building and sharing such a mission with us.