cfrag

Agreed. And it's not completely off the table, this is what is commonly referred to as 'posturing'. If the conditions are right, and all egos and other factors are satisfied, there may be a path to a resolution. The hope is that this happens somewhat amicably (perhaps via a third party to mollify bruised personas), with us customers receiving what we want most dearly: continued access to cool planes and no drama (my Mudhen is a fantastic module, and I would love to keep using it a loooooong time, can do without the theatrics). Nobody knows if it is likely nor feasible. So, hopefully there will be some form of agreement that preserves all the fantastic work that has gone into the mudhen, mirage, harrier, mig and Falklands. Let's take a step back and see if and when cooler heads can prevail.

You do realize that you are quoting one of the most common lament of long-time DCS fans, right? That, because of DCS' one-off business model, there is too little incentive to invest into DCS core, that there are people who would welcome a subscription model just to head off the exact line of thought you just wrote. Yes. There is very little business incentive in updating DCS core. If there was, it would not take a decade to upgrade ATC, bring a 'dynamic campaign' or a working save & continue system to DCS. If there was money in it, we'd have it today. No, you can't "always charge 10$ more for current FC+++ update." - it seems obvious to me that you haven't run the numbers, and like so many people in this thread, you simply assert something without bothering to check the facts. Run an edge-of-envelope calculation: how many of these FC+++ updates will you sell? Let's say 20'000. After tax and cuts from Steam etc that leaves you with, say 140'000 EUR (i.e. you make a phenomenal 70% on the dollar). That kind of money won't get you anywhere, it's barely enough to hire one decidedly average talent for a year in Switzerland, maybe 2 in some less expensive regions of the world. That is nothing, and the proceeds didn't even cover marketing - do you have any indication how much a simple, no frills global ad campaign for FC+++ would cost? Do you really think that the ED/RZ dustup is over some small change like that? Try and find out how much effort it is to create a module for DCS, multiply by 2 to include testing and marketing, then see how many units you need to sell before you turn a profit (hint: if you sell for 60 USD to a customer, you do not receive 60 USD). This is business. Now look at the RZ dispute and realize that there are serious funds involved, otherwise neither side would bother. This is business. And yes, if you do not maximize profits, you are doing it wrong. DCS is business, not a charity.

There's one, and it's the only one that counts: nobody invests money into them to make them. Every other reason is irrelevant. No business case, no plane. A module looks promising financially, an no data available? No problem, it'll be made. ED is business. DCS is business. Nobody in this business makes a plane for any other reason except to make money. Deal with it. And please, don't tell me 'if that was true, plane xxx would be made'. Go ahead, finance it and do it - and I'd love to be proven wrong. Everyone else is 'put up or shut up'. Deal with it. The F-35 is being made because it's a promising business endeavour. RZ didn't make planes out of the kindness of their hearts. The reason the entire ED/RZ dustup happened is because of money, not artistical disputes over colour schemes. Let's try and keep it real.

Version 2025050 (removes show-stopping DCS bug, adds more quality of life features) Changes in detail: - hardening against show-stopping DCS bug - better smoke handling for CSAR - small cosmetic upgrades to all helicopters - map shows cities slightly better - fog control And, whatever you do, DO NOT USE DCS' "SAVE MISSION" FEATURE. THAT WILL FUBAR THIS MISSION.

Some more detail: it seems that this bug affects single player, while at least ad-hoc mp seems to work (not exhaustively tested).

Version 1.75 - MANDATORY UPDATE, works around show-stopping DCS bug Another DCS release, another bad (show-stopping) bug to work around. v1.75 Changes • worked around a show-stopping DCS bug in persistence • improvements to CSAR mission • slight improvements to reaper drones • better airfield logic integration • PlayerScore integration with SpecialK's server mods • Airdrop ability for helo troops And, whatever you do, DO NOT USE DCS' "SAVE MISSION" FEATURE. THAT WILL FUBAR THIS MISSION.

Well, at least here I can help: DML's bank hasn't officially opened yet - that module is still experimental and hasn't yet received an UI part

Unfortunately, DCS itself isn't compatible with the "Save Mission" feature. Meaning: any mission that you save using that feature is so broken, that you can't really continue it. To me, that feature appears as a low-effort attempt to shoehorn something onto DCS that was never designed with save & continue. To me it also seems evident, that very little, if any engineering has gone into this. Should ED continue with the present-day architecture of this feature it won't ever become a "Save & Continue" feature that we are hoping for. All we will have is a (very) cheap & dirty solution for a non-existing problem. So is Expansion compatible with "Save Mission"? No. Currently DCS does not meet the requirements for such a feature. I'm thinking about bringing Expansion to other maps, yes. The stunning deterioration of quality in DCS's core gives me pause, though, and I'm currently scaling back my efforts.

As one of the perpetrators I tend to agree. Time for another wipe?

Unfortunately, they are in our society. Might makes right, and those who can enforce their laws will do so. That is why, a century or two ago, it was perfectly legal (and moral by some people who were able to enforce their particular brand of morals) to own slaves. It was one of the big lessons that I took from the Nürnberg trials: that all the horrific atrocities that my grandfather's generation committed were perfectly legal under German law, and that "new" laws had to created and/or applied: as you astutely mention crimes against humanity. It is noteworthy to me that during the time that these crimes were committed, the perpetrators did not feel that they were guilty of the crime, and the local authorities enforced the crimes. So it is entirely possible, likely even, that today's laws encode what later is viewed a crime. Meaning: laws are not abstractions of what is "just", they merely codify what is custom in a society, and what this society (or rather: those who have agency in that society) believe to be 'moral' and 'just'. It is not advisable to go against those codes, as they often are backed up by overwhelming force. She did break the law. From my comfortable moral standpoint today, she did the morally right thing. From the standpoint of the white majority then, she committed an offensive act that should be punished. That is why I'm so afraid of laws that codify 'morals'. And I hope that I have enough reflection in me to acknowledge that today's laws probably also codify things that I'm okay with - and that may, at a later point in time, be deemed absolutely horrific. For example eating the flesh of a bovine. I love steak, and it is entirely possible that this marks me an uncouth barbarian 100 years down the line. My apologies for being obtuse. My own brand of self-centred morality are bodily autonomy and consent, the preservation of health and well-being and the individual values of human beings. Meaning: I would not want anyone to harm another individual in any way, and I am arrogant enough to believe that everyone should think the same. That being said, it's irrelevant what I think if the majority of the society I live in enforces other rules. So yes, to me it would be inacceptable if someone became a vigilante. And no, you are absolutely correct when you point out that simply because I say so, I could also be full of it. Right and wrong are determined by whoever can enforce their version of 'right'. The road is indeed very short, even today: Might makes right. I believe that the US will soon give the world another lesson in what this can mean. Goodness, although interesting, I think we have strayed far off-topic. Thank you for the great points of thought, though.

Until DCS offers commands to units, it's always single-player groups, yes.

Ah, I may have misunderstood. To be sure that we are saying the same thing: If ED can't fulfil a contractual obligation to a customer, they will (if ordered so by a court) offer remedial action or refund to the client for the damages incurred by not fulfilling their obligation. This is between the customer and ED, and RZ does not enter in this at all. Here, a court will find in favour of the customer against ED. Any damages that ED had to pay to customers, ED can then try and submit as a claim against the party that caused the damage, in our case probably RZ. This is completely independent of above first point. If successful, a court decides in favour of ED against RZ. Let us assume courts decide in favour of the client in (1) and in favour of ED in (2). These two are NOT interconnected. That is an important distinction. If, e.g. as a result of the verdict (2), RZ goes bankrupt and can't pay ED, ED will still have to pay the customer what was awarded to them in (1). The two cases are NOT linked. This means that even it it is 100% established that RZ's actions caused ED to fail their obligations towards their (ED's) customer, ED will have to pay for it. Only then can they turn around and try to get remedy from the party that caused them harm.

Well, I can always take a look at the miz - if you send me a (mods stripped) version of the miz.

Perhaps. There is no enforcement of morals, though. If you want to make a lawyer laugh, cite 'moral standards'. One person's moral anchor is another person's punchline. We really don't want to go down that 'moral' road. Never. That is called vigilantism, and its a manifestation of how one believes themselves to be morally superior to others, attempting to justify their own transgressing against others by perceived or even actual injustice. If the money is needed urgently enough, there are other means besides breaking the law. Oh yes. Even if he didn't steal the money. As long as she does not harm Mickey in any way, that's fine. Laws change with the 'moral landscape' of the prevailing population, and what was a capital crime a few decades ago, can turn into rights (e.g. Germany's freedom of sexual orientation), and what once was a right can turn into a punishable offense (e.g. US's Jim Crow laws) over time. Laws are therefore never perfect, nor perfectly just. This ambiguity can tempt some people (usually people who strongly believe that they are right) to seek the "court of public opinion" rather than rolling the dice in a "real" court. To me personally, that's often a red flag. When companies engage in litigation, they often realize that there is no straight right or wrong in the public's eye, it's almost always a matter of viewpoint. So when they settle out of court, they almost always agree to never say a word of what was agreed, and hope that the fallout from whatever transpired before remains contained. It's what we say in my company: if you have to go to court, you have already lost, no matter what the result: there will be bad publicity. Clearly, I think that this is happening now, no matter who is right or wrong. It is disappointing to me that it has come that far, and I'm still hoping for a resolution with minimal fallout for us consumers.

Just to be sure that you are not as stupid as I was a few weeks ago when I encountered something similar, please try the following - remove the action that loads scribe Create a new DO SCRIPT action, and paste the scribe source inside I accidentally pasted another module twice (to make it worse, I managed to do it across different actions). Maybe that is the issue?

Let me try this: Imagine an associate of yours, "Mickey" stole $100 from you, and that's a known fact. Unfortunately, you owe another associate of yours, "Sandy" $50 that you now can't pay back. Those are all known facts. Still, it would be a bad idea if Sandy now broke in to Mickey's home, and stole $50 worth of goods, even though Mickeys actions have made it 'neccessary' for Sandy to get her money's worth back, even if you tried to tell Sandy that you transfer her claim towards you to Mickey (unless Mickey agrees, which he does not). Now Sandy breaks into Mickey's home, and takes stuff that she believes to be worth $50. Before the law, they are all different, individual cases, governed by different laws: Mickey's theft is adjudicated under one law, your obligation towards Sandy under another law, and Sandy's breaking and entering, trespassing, and theft are separate cases, adjudicated under different laws as well. One may well have caused the other, yet the way how the judicative deals with each of them (individually!!!) is entirely different. Moreover, Sandy's actions, though understandable, and maybe even "caused" (triggered) by Mickey's actions, still land her in judicative peril. Before the law, facts are interesting. Relevant is only applicable law. And Sandy only has a claim towards you, nothing that Mickey did would extend her claim towards you to Mickey. So, most facts even though they are known, are irrelevant because they do not apply here. Relevant are only the claims that you can prove. Between you and ED, there's nothing that binds RZ, so RZ are completely out of the picture even if RZ's head honcho was caught personally burning down ED's HQ and making off with ED's entire cache of money. Separate things remain separate.

You see, in legal matters it is irrelevant what lead to a cessation of services or a claim in a customer's dealings with ED. ED will have to deal with that in a separate matter. They (ED) can then turn around and try to get reimbursed from whomever have caused them whatever damages ED might have to pay to you. Legally, those are completely different matters, and usually different laws. Customers have a contract with ED. You and ED - those are the only parties relevant in a claim between you and ED. Who or whatever caused ED not being able to fulfil their contract to you is irrelevant to your claim. That's legal 101, and helps simplify matters. Keep separate things separate.

Say "I know nothing about legal matters" without saying "I know nothing about legal matters". ED's dealings with their customers is completely, entirely divorced from their dealings with their subcontractors. If my garage can't perform a scheduled car maintenance because they have issues with their subcontractor responsible for some power tools, that won't ever become part of the deal I have with the garage. Separate things stay separate.

Version 20250502 - DCS Bug fixes, minor cosmetic updates This update works around a show-stopping bug introduced with the past DCS release. And, whatever you do, DO NOT USE DCS' "SAVE MISSION" FEATURE. THAT WILL FUBAR THIS MISSION. Changes in Detail: - hardening against many show-stopping DCS bugs - small optical enhancements

Version 20250502 - DCS Bug fixes, minor cosmetic updates This update works around a show-stopping bug introduced with the past DCS release. And, whatever you do, DO NOT USE DCS' "SAVE MISSION" FEATURE. THAT WILL FUBAR THIS MISSION. Changes in Detail: - code hardening against DCS bugs (a lot!) - smoke zones upgrade - fireCtrl, airTank - minor scenery alignment - minor optical tweaks (Hips) - persistence DCS show-stopping bug hardening

Ah. Thank you for the additional information. Please try the following: look for, and delete the folder "tempMission (data)" in your Missions/ folder. Restart the Mission. Does it work now? If so, remember that you now (until ED fix the bug that causes this) must supply a saveDir and saveFileName attribute with some nice names in the persistenceConfig zone.

I'm having difficulties re-producing the issue. Can I trouble you to do the following: download the demo mission from DML (updated for current DML), see attached Run as SP, go to communication->Other and choose the option to spawn the CSAR via flag 100. The CSAR mission should spawn. Do the same in MP. Is there any difference for you? Note that - unless you configured DCS differently - when you run local server, the mission starts paused, so in order to be able to spawn the CSAR, you must un-pause the mission first. Do SP and MP give different results on your DCS? They seem to work the same on my DCS (which may mean nothing ) demo - CSAR of Georgia.miz

That's silly. Why would a lizard pose as a ship???

Thank you. Can you elaborate what "working" means? Put differently: what does "does not work in MP" mean specifically? Can you describe a situation in detail as it happens correctly in SP, and how that happens incorrectly (and how that seems incorrect) in MP?

Up until recently, invoking DCS.getMissionName() would return the name of the mission currently running. Now it ALWAYS returns the same constant 'tempMission' Simply run this script in any mission -- say my mission name local mn = net.dostring_in("gui", "return DCS.getMissionName()") trigger.action.outText("Hi, my mission name is <" .. mn .. ">", 30) it now ALWAYS returns "tempMission", which is wrong This breaks a lot of functionality, especially for missions that need to know their name (e.g. any mission that wants to use some kind of homegrown persistance). Dear @Flappie, may I enlist your help in directing this to the attention of someone who can help? Thank you, -ch Oh, I've attached a mission to reproduce the issue, as described above say my name.miz