Dangerzone

I'm no expert in this, but I'll offer what I can. Just the fact that VoiceAttack is recognising your voice but not doing inputs tells me that maybe VoiceAttack doesn't have permisison to 'input keystrokes' into the DCS application. Are you running DCS as 'Run as administrator' by any chance? If so - make sure you turn this off/disable so it just runs as a regular user. (You may need to reassign permission to certain files or do a repair - depending on whether updates have occurred under 'as administrator' and set permissions incorrectly). Same deal with NeckSafer. You may want to try uninstalling and reinstalling it - and making sure that it, and DCS is not running 'as administrator'. I could be way off, but it's worth checking.

I'm not familiar with how mods and liveries are done, but just wondering if this is something that can be done with a mod - and if so - would ED be open to a user making this change or adding this function and then submitting to them for implementing officially? Given this is something that was advised was being worked on in 2020 - and understanding that the team are no doubt stretched with their current workload and this would be a low priority - could this be an option for the community to assist ED to ensure it does happen?

Image from here: \ Can't wait!!!!!

Same problem with contrails.

Love your work. I have a couple of questions re the gigantic explosions. First - I notice that the radius and height are not constants, but a fixed parameter. ie: --Trigger the explosion local maxRadius = 200 * sizeScale local maxHeight = 500 * sizeScale Before I start hacking around with the code to meet my requirements - just wondering if there's any reason that this is like this, or if it's safe for me to change these to a constant / setting at the top so these can be customised for each purpose? Secondly - I notice that the checks appear to be done on a timer, as opposed to checking for event.hit or event.dead. My limited understanding - I would have thought that hooking the event function and checking for event.hit or event.dead and seeing if it references one of the units would be more performance friendly than doing a scan every second to see if something is hit. Please don't take this as criticism - I'm not saying this is the case, nor saying what you should be doing - I think you've done a fantastic job - this is more to query my understanding so I can learn the pro's and con's of why it was done this way - if you don't mind sharing.

Maybe autoexec.cfg is configured after it loads all the defaults, and any (and all) global variable defaults can be changed via it. If so - there could be hundreds of variables/options that could be set by autoexec.cfg that we don't know of (or shouldn't be touching) . That now has me wondering about the whole dynamic spawn at dynamically created CTLD FARPS and whether that could be set at the server via autoexec.cfg instead of hacking/editing the main install file. I guess for now, I'll be grateful to whomever found it and realised that it provided the solution that we have one. Honestly - I'd be stoked if it did come from ED officially through a support ticket, or even just see ED officially recognizing it now as a work-around solution. The more I see of AI, the more I see that it is nothing like the fictional movies that we have watched. The real danger we face with AI is taking what it says as gospel and being lead by it as it learns incorrect (or stupid ) content. It's pretty much the same danger that we face if we do a google search and trust what's been presented to us without scrutiny). That's why I prefer forums. People can challenge others and provide a different perspective, or even correct bad information. The amount of times I find myself arguing with ChatGPT and then realize "What am I doing"

I’d like to feel more life like there’sa world out there, and not just an individual mission I’m doing. Another old sim apparently did this well, making it feel like their was a bigger battle. I’m really hoping that ED have found a way to capture that same immersion with their DCE. That the DCE won’t just be like the quick generator but ongoing… but will be more like a full battle that we play a small part in a larger picture, with our success or failure having an impact on the bigger picture. As for civilian movement, well-with issues still with parthing off ground units in some roads, and performance issues, and trains, I don’t think there’d be much success adding civilian stuff on top until they get that bedded down and fully stable first.

This one appears bugs me with air refueling. Breaks the immersion.

Oh. So while the directors don’t detect statics, the spawning still does? That’s great. Thanks!!

I was thinking if it was an official configuration variable, there might be something. But if this is more from the SDK or things we're not supposed to know about, and someone has somehow figured it out by tracking what's in the DCS files and doing trial by error and testing, then that probably answers why ED are so quiet on all this. It's not something that we're supposed to know about. Just a pitty though that ED couldn't have thrown us a bone and said "Try this setting" instead of leaving us to have to hack through the files to find a solution, but on the flip side - I'm grateful to whomever came about the discovery so we have a solution to a problem! But now it's really got me wondering how many more secret autoexec.cfg configuration variables are available.

Hi, I was just wondering if we might be able to get a new menu option in the mission editor for "Import From Mission File" that allows us to import units/groups/statics/etc from another mission file into/ontop of the current mission. I know we can currently do this in a 'work around' way by opening up the mission we want, saving it to a static template, then opening up the mission we're working on and choosing load from static template. However this appears to be doing the same thing, but just forcing the user to do it in 2 steps instead of a single step? Is there any reason why this is 2 step, instead of just a simple "Load from Static Template File" that allows us to choose any .MIZ file, and not just those staves as a static template? Also - as an extra bit of help, it would be nice to streamline the operation by just selecting a .miz file, but then having options/checkboxes to allow toggling of: Import Planes Import Helicopters Import Statics Import Zones and a toggle for "Import All / Import Blue / Import Red". Thanks for consideration DZ

Are you sure? According to the picture you provided, the statics are on the port/left side of the forward catapults (which I understand to typically be Catapult 1 - but maybe I'm wrong)? Edit: Hmm... looks like I am wrong. https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3312139/ Cat 1 appears to be on the starboard side. All this time I've been referencing the wrong cat number. Aah - thanks for the clarification. I was kinda hoping there was a setting I had missed, like the ability to block certain spawn slots (thus blocking use of certain catapults) - as this would be far more robust and usable. Sounds like you've found a sneaky workaround for now. Nice work though to figure out that method. That would have taken some time I imagine!

How are you getting away with having statics on cat 1 and not having a player spawn in and get nativated to cat 1? Have you found a way to disable spawning in certain slots? Or is this done by the way you delay spawning of certain flights? If the latter, it sounds like with each update, there's a risk that ED may change something on how this works that will ruin your mission. (ie, they could change the spawn order to be random, which may then use Cat 1 again, etc)? Obviously if it's working for you that's fantastic, but just something to keep in mind. Unfortunately for me, I gave up on having statics on the deck. There's enough bugs and issues to deal with in DCS to add additional risks into the mix. I don't have the energy I once had to keep testing and tracking things down as much as I once had, but I would still very much one day like to get back to having a carrier that is setup nicely.

Don't trust ChatGPT. It makes things up when it doesn't really know the answer) - and often gives different answers. For instance, I just asked it and it gives this response: In autoexec.cfg, the bkg_load_signed_plugins setting controls whether DCS loads digitally signed plugins in the background during startup: true: Enables background loading of signed plugins. This can improve startup time by parallelizing plugin initialization. false: All plugins (even signed ones) are loaded sequentially, possibly making startup slower but more stable for troubleshooting. It's mainly a performance tuning flag. Most users can leave it set to true. ... which is a completely different response to what you got. Plus, if no one has any unsigned plugins (or even if they do) - I don't see how setting it to false would fix the issue, as @YoYo has mentioned. There's something more going on here. I can't find any documentation about it on the internet - and ChatGPT seems to be just making things up. Additionally, when I asked ChatGPT for it's source for this information it gave: The information about bkg_load_signed_plugins in DCS World's autoexec.cfg file is primarily sourced from user discussions on the ED Forums. For instance, a user named @Nightstormreported that setting bkg_load_signed_plugins = false resolved performance issues introduced in version 2.9.15, such as startup stuttering and mission saving problems. This suggests that disabling background loading of signed plugins can lead to more stable performance in certain scenarios.forum.dcs.world However, there is no official documentation from Eagle Dynamics detailing the exact function of this setting. The understanding of its impact is based on community observations and troubleshooting experiences. For more detailed discussions and user experiences, you can refer to the ED Forums thread where this topic is discussed: forum.dcs.world. We're stuck in a loop. ChatGPT is referencing us, and we're referencing it. This is why I asked the question where people are getting their information from, or even knew that this setting existed in the first place. There seems to be no official documentation available. Is someone doing searches through the binaries for text constants and found this as an option and decided to throw it into autoexec.cfg to see what it does, and it just worked? Or did an insider recommend to a friend to try the setting, who recommended it to another friend, and it finally made it's way 'leaked' to this forum? Or did this come from someone who submitted an official support ticket to ED, and they said to try it? Or does the first person who recommended it actually know more information about this setting, and is able to provide deeper information as to any potential side effects to watch out for. Or if there's no potential side effects - can we get ED to set this as the default to fix the countless people struggling with the same issues that don't frequent this forum. What's so bizarre about all this is that multiple 'stuttering' threads are popping up on this forum, with very few getting a response by ED reps. Then this comes out apparently from nowhere, with no source of origin. I'm beginning to wonder if this is a dev fallback solution that ED put in for a change they've made with 2.16 and it's leaked its way to us. And if so - it's very disappointing that ED hasn't acknowledged there's been a change that they introduced that has caused this problem, and being more forthcoming about trying this setting themselves to resolve it in the numerous 'stuttering' threads that are popping up. But this is conjecture - we seem to be very much in the dark about it. Plus, I'm beginning to wonder now how many more secret/hidden autoexec.cfg settings there are that could help increase our experience with DCS - which is another reason I'm eager to know the source of this information.

I honestly don't understand this call for more free stuff. As mentioned numerous times above - ED have a 2 week trial on most maps, and most aircraft (which resets every 6 months). A person could go and 'taste' 12 different aircraft during that time and then rinse and repeat again until they find what they're looking for. That's extremely generous. If what ED has offered in the way of free options (combination of free maps, free aircraft and the trial period) isn't enough and it's still a hurdle for new players, then I would question how much those types of players would be willing to invest into DCS modules after all. I'm all for making DCS more beginner friendly, but I think ED have actually done a better job than most with the free/trial stuff. Maybe part of the issue is that DCS is designed for a niche market? I think you've hit something though with your mentioning of iRacing and the MP / match making though! A big difference I see between DCS and other flight sims is that DCS is reportedly mostly SP. The others that I know of seem to thrive in a MP community. On wondering if DCS has gotten most of the way it can in the SP community and the rest is diminishing returns? Could the answer to catching a larger number of fish be a larger and more diverse MP environment where the other game/sims seem to thrive? However the MP side of DCS is left to community members to create environments for, and provide peer support - and this is an area I see that DCS lacks in... official support for the MP environment. We have had excellent 3rd party support/contributions with MIST, MOOSE, SRS, OverlordBot, Special-K's Bot, etc... but this is more in spite of, not really due to the support ED has given to these communities. It seems each new change they make that could support the MP community falls 'just short' of what the MP community have asked for. Look at the dynamic spawning. It's absolutely fantastic to not have to put down individual aircraft anymore... but one of the calls was to have the ability to dynamically place FARPS on the map and spawn from them, so that the players themselves add to the dynamic nature. This was so close to being done (so close, it can be done with a hack with a .lua file) - but ignored by ED. There are countless examples of ED not engaging well with the MP content creators, and I suspect we've been bleeding talent that is getting tired and burned out of waiting for ED to actually connect and listen or be more supportive in this area and fixing bugs they introduce with a new update in a timely manner. (Instead of taking 2 or 3 years to look into them again). When I look at these other more popular flight games/sims... one thing they seem to have in common is a thriving MP community. This brings in more MP options with real ATC, more engagements, more diverse environments, more bringing friends onboard, etc. Something where DCS unfortunately doesn't raise to it's potential that it could thrive in too. But ED have never appeared to be that worried about this. Maybe they're not after a larger community. Maybe they're happy just being a niche game with a niche market and are happy to coast along with what they're doing with the current customer base. I mean - do we even have a single official/commercial MP campaign? The other area lacking in DCS is the dynamic gameplay. Thankfully this is something ED have known and have been working on for considerable time - however again it seems they are prioritizing only on the SP side of things. Hopefully the DCE will be a major leap forward in attracting much more attention to DCS. I would like to think too that this time will be different and they'll actually be considering the MP side of things more than usual, along with consideration for MP content creators / server hosters with their plans for the DCE, but I have my reservations that we'll see more of the same as we have in the past for the MP side of things, and it'll be the lesser consideration.

I wonder how difficult it would be to introduce ai voice recognition into DCS. When I started, one of the biggest hello was being able to ask over discord during a flight “why isn’t my missiles firing”, and have someone come back with “have you checked x,y, z?” Given the majority are SP and don’t have MP servers to assist, could some sort of AI built into training where a user can just talk and the AI knows the situation they’re in (plane, etc) and can draw from the extensive Q&A on this forum, chucks guides and elsewhere and give help be an asset. Thinks like checklists, or “where is the x switch”, etc. Think an interactive tutor. How close do you think AI is to told and how difficult do you think it would be to implement. And would maybe a poor man’s solution of this already be available, in ChatGPT’s voice mode? Edit: just thinking of AI voice mode DCS, and it would open up so many more opportunities too. Imagine being able to do ATC using your own voice. We have had some brilliant third-party implementations with overlord bot and VAICOM, but a full AI system of this would be pretty epic too.

Just a follow up - does anyone know more about bkg_load_signed_plugins ? Is this a fallback to an OLD way of doing it (undoing what was introduced recently), or is this a test flag for a new way that could be implemented in the future? Is there any negative/downside to using this? Or is this just a setting that someone stumbled across in the dark, tried it - it fixed issues but no one knows anything more?

I get what you mean. I ended up with a love/hate relationship with DCS. Absolutely love it, but banging my head against a brick wall with frustrations over and over. Gave myself half a years break from doing anything with it, self reflected and realized that I have been trying to use DCS for things that it's just either not ready for, or ED don't have a strong interest in supporting. I think one of the MP server hosters came with a similar conclusion in a youtube video earlier this year just as I was getting back in, which I found as a bit of confirmation. Since then, lowering and changing my expectations, I've enjoyed DCS more. I'm trying to get less rapped up on what DCS could be (or should be in my eyes), reduced my commitment to deep mission and scripting, keeping it more basic and just accepting it for what it is instead and working around the flaws instead of becoming increasingly frustrated with them. Avoiding modules that are "too EA" (like the Chinook, Afghanistan and Iraq) - and rather waiting to see what is at a state ready for me to enjoy. (Jumped on Germany - that's been brilliant right from the scratch, even if it has it's quirks and is only stage 1). I'd say as a result I've enjoyed DCS more in the last few months than I think I have for a number of years now. Nothing really changed with DCS (if anything, it's become a bit worse in some areas since they've abandoned the idea of a separate Beta/Stable release) and I'm dealing with more bugs (where once I used to watch this space, see the amount of issues people were dealing with but by the time a stable was released, either the majority were resolved and those that weren't I had plenty of 'heads up' time on what issues were and how to go about workarounds). But even with all that, I'd say it's been better for me in general since adjusting my own "hopes and dreams" accordingly.

A comprehensive list of things to try is here: I would suggest you start with trying Turbo mode first, RivaTuner second, and continue from there. I thought about making a YT video with some of these (once I have a better idea of what works and doesn't for different people/scenario's), but in all honesty - a point by point post like this checklist that people can scan through in 30 seconds to see what they have and haven't tried seems far more efficient than a 30 min youtube video that people have to watch to get through all the points. Hope this helps. FWIW - Stuttering was introduced with 2.16. If this is your first setup the other thing you could try is rolling back to 2.14 and play until you get a good experience. This would eliminate the introduced issues with 2.16 out of the equation first so you can get a good experience.

I think the directors send planes to a fixed catapult depending on where they are spawned. I don't think the directors are currently dynamic and each follows a set path from each spawn location to the designated cat. Would love to be proven wrong, but that's been my observation so far. I get the feeling that the original idea may have been to be more dynamic than it is, but given reports that they went way over budget on this feature, I'd guess they faced unexpected hurdles and in the end had to go with a more simpler approach. One of the reasons I asked the question is that I'm aware of the over-budget thing, and am assuming that ED aren't going to want to invest anymore into this than is absolutely necessary to mark it complete / get the SC out of early access. I'm pleased to hear that they're still doing tweaks and considering requests. Hopefully the majority of requests we've asked for are simple enough to include with their tweaks, but I don't have expectations that we'll see larger requests such as dynamic cats (if indeed the whole coding is based on fixed paths and this would require a rewrite) is something we'll ever see. As for set MP mission events - I add a second carrier about 20 miles away for a reserved launch/recovery operation if something gets stuck with the main carrier. Not the greatest workaround, but we work with what we have.

If love to see this, but before rewind, they need to get the basic playback stable so it doesn’t go corrupt, and is true to the original gameplay. I believe they did do changes to it a few months ago to try and improve reliability, but not sure how that went? Does anyone know if you can replay back a full multiplayer mission now with accurate results without things going astray, or is their still issues with the replay going corrupt? I’m guessing from the above post, we’re still plagued with AI making different decisions with playback, et al? If there’s no stability with long tracks, I would imaging a rewind would be actually impossible to achieve. And not to be a downer, but to have realistic expectations - I don’t see this changing anytime soon. The best peak to progress I see this would have been some sort of regular “save state” option in the tack file to ensure points to jump between and ensure integrity of the playback. Now, looking into the new save feature, (if I understand it properly), it’s not much different to what people have smart achieved through lua scripts. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but as I understand it, it only saves basic unit information. It doesn’t save progress through paths/waypoints, variable status, trigger states, or any of the basic needs for resuming part way through commercial campaigns. If there was ever a time for ED to write something that could handle that sort of capability required for rewind- it would have been with the save/resume function to hold a game state so we could at least jump to periodic tone stamps and resume from there. So, short of something far deeper being worked on that we’re unaware of (which I doubt-why would they waste time writing a basic function and at the same time write a completely different deep function) I don’t expect to see a rewind function before, well possibly a whole engine rewrite. A bare minimum 10 years, and probably more. Dream and hope big, ButI suggest just don’t hold out for it and adjust expectations accordingly, and find friends with similar ambitions so you do have access to multiple real time camera angles to capture during flight. If nothing else, it helps us to appreciate just how much zero serious work goes into these amazing YouTube videos.

If this was to be done, I would be requesting an API function call to do it too. This would expand the options to be used in missions, scripting, etc beyond just a single purpose, but would also allow what you want too.

Thanks BN!

Hi, Just wondering if plane directors are considered finished as is (or finished as is for the time being), or whether they are still being worked on. There's a number of things I've seen requested, which I am hoping was included in consideration such as: Ability to bypass parking after landing to go straight to the Catapult again Bypass the Wing fold requirements. (For mods and other aircraft) Changes to taxi logic. (Don't have planes go all the way to the stern after landing during recovery ops) Ability to set the carrier in 'Recovery' or 'Launch' mode manually. (Triggers/API Script). Disable the 180 degree auto-rotation in missions (for when the mission ends). The ability to specify only which cats (and thus which spawn slots) are available to use (to allow for placing of statics on bow) Apart from the requests, I don't recall seeing any responses, so just looking for clarification as to whether: The plane directors are considered finished and no current plans for making any changes (besides bug fixes) The plane directors are considered 'on hold' for now as is... with plans to enhance them later in the distant future? The plane directors are still actively been worked on to implement additional functionality? Something else? It would just make it a bit easier for mission building/planning/etc to know what we should and shouldn't expect please. My apologies if this has been answered. I did a search and couldn't find anything, and don't recall reading anything. (Although that doesn't mean much - my google-fu ain't the greatest, and my memory has a bit to be desired too at some stages). Cheers DZ

I guess that answers my question as to whether you read the checklist. And the thanks goes to @actually_fred for putting me on the right path with this... I'm just paying it forward. If you start having issues in the future, it may not hurt to go through that checklist. I'm not saying it's all correct - but I think you'll find it far more exhaustive than a few you-tube video's (many of which will take up 10 minutes of your time to make just 4 suggestions)