cfrag

Well, if it's a third-party addon (a.k.a. "MOD") or paid-for DLC, it's a no-go for any server-based mission, I'm afraid. I'd love to see some more 'local color' so to speak in the form of various animals, and do hope that ED find it in their time to provide them. They are a nice addition for helo drivers, but completely irrelevant for the jocks, and they do not fulfil the criterium of "must-have". Then again, SA came with penguins and orcas, and I loved that, for reasons I can't rationally explain

I always thought that "five is right out"? My Antioch manual requires updating, I see. Anyway, for me it's lights out when the conspiracy theorists enter the stage, and I think that this thread is well past that point.

I don't think it ever was. It's a haphazard, silly implementation that points to an underqualified temp worker with a passing knowledge (i.e. might have flown with someone and heard some chatter) of some procedures. When someone rambles about DCS's supposed 'realism' this is the first thing that comes to my mind. "Realism" my left foot. The current implementation is a bad joke, and a massive blemish on ED's record. My father used to say "anything worth doing is worth doing well". Sadly, no such ethics evident here. I prefer current ATC taken out completely rather than having this broken, amateurish stuff. It seems that ED have gone that step in Multiplayer already (GND/TWR no longer respond in MP when you contact them).

Here are the new versions of MX and PlayerScore, plus a demo miz that shows a negative score factor for neutral kills. Enjoy, -ch playerScore.lua cfxMX.lua Neutral kills the mood.miz

It would require the exact same work in Ungrief. The challenge is to differentiate between a unit kill and an object kill. Until DCS changed stuff internally, the method of choice was to look if the killed target belonged to a group (making it a unit) or did not have a group (in which case it was a scenery or map object). So, if you kill a map object (which are all neutral) simply by missing something else it would look like a neutral unit kill. If Ungrief was watching, you'd be kicked unless I find a way to discriminate the two. So, I'm looking for a clean solution that then also can be back-ported to Ungrief. Oh, and the change also affects Red and Blue units. The issue was mostly masked because of the other checks that PlayerScore performs and still was able to backtrace the kill.

Perhaps, but IMHO not the most important ones (i.e. the ones people associate with nukes): Flash and mushroom cloud EMP and shock waves (heat, pressure) moving at different velocities Ionizing radiation that prevents/disrupts radio comms When I was working on an 'inferno' type script that simulates large-scale conflagrations, I also observed the detrimental effects these visual effects have on game performance, so simulating a firestorm on the ground, although simple to achieve, is also not advisable. So if all you want is lay waste to the map and your miz's performance - the destruct zones can be your ticket. And they don't synch over network, so this is a single-player only thing. And if your fps is still above 2, add fire/smoke effects until it drops well below the 1 mark

Say what? That is entirely not the going educated opinion. Just what sources are you referring to? A "mild" nuclear exchange (say on the Indian sub-continent with some 100 nuclear blasts) is expected to kill a quarter of a billion people world-wide, most of them from hunger. In the event of a Russia-US nuclear exchange and several thousand nuclear explosions happening, the expected result is a nuclear winter with a near-total collapse of trade -- and the hunger-death of a couple of billion people (you do realize that Earth's population can only be sustained by industrial food production that collapses because trade collapses): the resulting famine will kill off 50%+ of humanity worldwide. Here's some educational material that may be helpful, and it's nicely presented:

So I started on that, and I found that although the nMod change was small, some undocumented DCS internal changes *really* threw a spanner into the entire playerScore module. The fix is inbound, and I think I can finish it by tomorrow so you can have an early version to test. But - man! DCS Mission Scripting Environment is a hot mess. Now, when you kill a ground vehicle, it instantly loses the group that it was part of. I can fix that with some trickery, sure, but that requires the MX module write down all known units and groups. And that means that DCS's own coalition.addGroup() method needs to be patched so spawners and cloners still can spawn and have their spawned units be correctly recognized... what a mess. I'm now knee-deep into engineering a minimally invasive fix, and with some luck I can contain this mess to changes to two modules: MX and playerScore. Keep your fingers crossed.

We have to protect our precious bodily fluids. Huh. Not one, but two classic quotes in a single comment. My hat is off (if I had one) to the DCS community !!

Now that is indeed something that I overlooked, thank you for the hint. I'm adding a new attribute "nMod" which is a multiplicator applied to killscore for neutral kills. It defaults to 0 (sets the score to zero), and if you really want to punish your players, set it to -10 or -100 (or even higher, ummm, lower) which will tank their score near irredeemably. I'll start working on that soon.

Indeed, and unlikely. If a civilization has harnessed energy in a way that it allows them interstellar travel, their mode of transportation would certainly not be susceptible to a primitive (from their perspective) energy-based attack, much like today's tanks aren't susceptible to [primitive kinetic-energy] attacks like small rocks flung from a sling -- and that technology gap is only some 10'000 years. Nuclear bombs may seem awesome for us today; to a Kardashev Level II type civilization, they are likely to be quaint jokes; spit-balls and similar, what children get to play with in kindergarden.

Only if the goal would be to not deliver it - in which case any dumb bomb/cargo would do the trick for that mission. That being said, I'm sot sure that DCS's physics engine is set up to correctly handle an EMP, and the effects it has on units (ground, naval, air) in a high-alt ca. 1970's high yield blast (not to mention the plasma propagation and fallout clouds). It'll be fantasy central for the remainder of all mission action that follows a blast. Why would we want this kind of silliness in our missions? I'm not even sure that enough research (even classified) exists to model such a scenario (let's be honest: many of us, me included, would try to surf a nuclear blast wave in a jet), so let's hope that ED focus the meager resources that they have for core-related updates on things that more people can use (my hopes still lie with ATC). Modelling nuke blasts is very far down my list of priorities, but since is a wish list forum, sure, you be you.

I doubt it, and should it be released anytime soon, it is likely to break compatibility with most (if not all) existing missions and campaigns: ED have insufficient control of the Lua interpreter which runs the myriads of scripts inside the missions, and therefore they have no way to stop, persist, and later continue those scripts. So in order to bring mid-game saves, they will have to get their own (or different) Lua interpreter that supports save-states, or ED simply define "mission save" in their own way -- which is likely to be very different from what you or I would call a "mid-mission save". Due to the way that DCS/ED are currently set up (they make money exclusively through new module sales and have no other fixed DCS income stream), there are none, or very little, funds available for core game development. A "real" save-game feature IMHO is simply too big, too costly and therefore out of reach for present-day ED. I'd love to be proven wrong, though, so here's to hoping that the kind people at ED surprise me.

Although a really nice idea, we know that the student pilot/trainer aircraft concept does not translate well to games. In a game you don't risk your life, so you don't need trainer aircraft to learn the basics. Plus, as I have learned, most students -- even in a student/trainer setup with paid modules -- have no interest in doing the boring: 2 minute turns or shooting approach isn't exciting. They want to blow stuff up, and the trainer aircraft don't deliver that as well as the real McCoys can. So good-bye straight&level training, hello fuzed ardnance, skills be damned. So, IMHO adding such a feature, although probably well received by enthusiasts, will not translate into a significant uptick in sales. The two weeks trials will probably suffice in this regard. What color has the sky in your universe? Nothing gaming-related convinces wives in mine.

That is strange indeed. Can you please check if the DML demo mission for that feature works for you? Maybe we can go from there and see what is different in your mission.

Currently, DCS does not fully support spawned FARPs nor Airbases, and carriers are regarded as airbases.

When the sun rises in the West and sets in the East. When the seas go dry and mountains blow in the wind like leaves.

Boy, did I not expect that much feedback -- thank you all. I burned the midnight oil, and "Snows" has radically been enhanced: Feature-wise it now sports convoys that constantly strive to resupply their forward bases, marked yellow in the map as "Convoy Alley". You can hunt for ground targets there. Once a convoy reaches the forward base, it is repaired and reinforced. And yeah, convoys are defended, and can even be accompanied by helicopter escorts! And otherwise, a lot of fine-tuning and polishing has gone into Snows. Eye-candy , audio, and more. Here's the entire list of enhancements: activated persistence 1/min removed some typos heavily dramatized (visually) the forward base areas Beslan base eye candy Added Convoys blue Added Convoys red Convoy Alley Red and Blue complete, auto-spawn new "usher" service created, greets all players corrected some flight names Mineralnye Vody eye candy added Reworked RED paint schemes Added missing Mig-15 (FC and FF) Updated Spawnables (dynamic) Reworked Blue paint schemes Added more audio Enjoy, -ch

Currently, no. I'm thinking about adding troops by loading more, and they all disembark at the same time, it's still a big change, though.

There is something strange indeed going on. This is the second instance where I cannot reproduce an issue that you have. Please remove all mods from your mission, if possible PM it to me or post it here, with (very) exact (I'm a ham-fisted fool, so the more exact the better) instructions as to how I can reproduce the issue. If you are using any of the new DCS abilities (e.g. dynamic spawn from an airfield) please be sure to mention it.

I did. The ASW modules are old, and very likely require an update -- meaning nothing that I can do between two coffees...

check spelling in the config zone, if all fails, pm the miz to me

ED (and @BIGNEWY in particular) do read these comments. We can even see that, occasionally, there is a tangible result. After a couple of years with DCS, reading the (too few) missives that do arrive from the Mothership, I tend to agree with Sidekick's assessment that ED attempts "Community Management", vis-à-vis "Community Engagement" [see the 09:30 mark in the linked video]: ED is intent to convince their community that what they do is right, rather than listening to them to hear what they have to say about DCS. In other words: I feel that most of our comments are tolerated, but not really welcome - unless they align with ED's own goals. For a simple, revealing example look no further that this page's welcome message: Note that the red coloration is ED's own. Ask anyone with experience in communications, and they agree what above statement screams: "stop bothering me, be brief, don't socialize". It's hardly surprising to me that we get the results that we do, and it's the main reason that I feel that ED can dramatically improve their engagement with the community. As long as ED seemingly regard most of us as a necessary evil rather than a resource for inspiration, the likelihood of our engagement with ED to be successful and/or rewarding stays miniscule. For reference, please find Sidekick's thoughts below, which to me (being a management type myself) ring true, and are an outsider's assessment (like mine). So, like mine, they may all be bull. I'm still hopeful that ED have mapped out their long-term strategy to better engage with us, their community, and are busy guarding against the obvious challenges that DCS is facing mid-term: a hollowed-out core, and accelerating slide in delivered quality. After so many years, DCS is approaching an inflection point, and I'd love to see 10 more years of DCS,

Version 2.0.0 -- 20241127 - "Convoy Hunters" FEATURE UPDATE Download (please click here) Winter has come to Caucasus; unease lingers in the air. At Beslan, the cold warriors of the West have assembled, while Mineralnye Vody now hosts Eastern’s winged fury. On this January morning, frost mingles with snow from the ground as Wind Walkers, heads filled with fire, don wings of iron and rise to meet their challenge between the clouds. Are you ready to rise with them? Are you ready to fly? * "The Snows of Sorrow" is a cold war era sandbox, designed to help you and your friends get comfortable with the great machines of that time: this mission is cold war planes only, armed to their teeth, relying on your sheer skills to drive them. Things to do: Fixed wings: Air to Ground There is an enemy forward base to attack (see your map). The base will defend itself. And then there's "Convoy Alley": lots of trucks that re-supply the enemy forward base. Hunt along the alley and look for prey on the ground, and the occasional rotorwing escort. Both may be armed... Air-to-Air There is a 'CAP' area marked out for your faction. Inside this area, pilots can choose to call up and engage enemy fighters and heavies. Unlike enemy fighters. the heavies are undefended. Formation and Intercept/escort Note that these flights are entirely non-confrontational exercises. Call up a similar (i.e. same type as yours) or dissimilar plane to join their wing and fly in formation. Or call up a heavy to intercept and escort (but do not attack!). Helicopters Troop Insertion Load up your troops. There's a building (marked on the map) where you are tasked to deliver them to the roof. For the Huey, it's not that difficult, the RED version requires you to land on a high rise, requiring substantially more skill Air to Ground Just like fixed wings, you can harass the enemy forward base (marked "FWD" on your map), or hunt convoys that resupply the base. Be advised that convoys may be defended by helicopters. Sling Load Sling loads are ready for helicopters to pick up at the green smoke. You are tasked to transport these loads to the area marked "SLING" and also marked with green smoke Formation and Intercept/escort Call up a similar or dissimilar helicopter and join their wing to fly in formation. Or call up a heavy friendly helicopter to intercept and escort. PVP When you fly your plane outside your faction's zone, players from the other faction may (are allowed to) attack you. Of course, the rules of engagement may vary between servers, and requires that players are around. Outside the CAP lanes, no AI pilot will attack a player NEVER, EVER try to engage the other faction's airfield. That's the way to a quick, dusty death. Note to server owners: "Snows" uses stopGap for much better scenery. When run in multiplayer, you should install the tiny "stopGap GUI" script on your server for better protection against some nasty DCS synchronization bugs (player planes or helicopters 'fall to the ground' on slotting in) Note: "Snows" is my first attempt at cold war scenarios. I welcome all feedback - and hope to have that help me craft some more action-oriented cold war missions in the vein of "Expansion".

Perhaps it could be interesting to learn how ED's own @Wags has overcome these challenges.