Dangerzone

I have a couple of options that may be potentially useful to you for a workaround at the moment: One option is to have each side place their units in a separate mission. Then I believe that you can import templates from other missions over the top - so you could have one person as the administrator tasked with the job of importing both to the final mission at the very end before setting up the game. Everyone else wouldn't then see the different sides. Or - going one step further - I have been playing around with scripting that will automatically load other units from other mission files into the running mission as it plays out. This second option is probably more suitable for people who are happy with scripting in running missions, but it does allow scenario's to be brought in on the fly that anyone can previously design with just the mission editor: I know neither option is what you've asked for - but if you need a solution now - these are 2 possibilities.

Thanks for the counter view gentlemen. I don't know if my thought process is right, but what I seemed to notice with DCS (with my 10700) - is that 100mhz seemed to make the difference at one stage between stutters and no stutters to me. My guess (and I admit it's a complete guess) is that with the settings or server scripting / number of units / etc on the MP map is that once DCS hits a limit - it doesn't gracefully degrade gradually - it degrades in steps. The problem I had is I haven't been able to push that 100mhz and keep it stable. I was going to give up on VR, but then OpenXR came out, works smoother with less frames and saved my bacon seemingly solving the issue. So when I looked at these 2 options, and saw 400mhz difference after my experience - it's always been in the back of my head that with DCS - it's not necessarily a down hill run, but a cliff that you can meet between acceptable and non-acceptable, and I've been paranoid ever since - so 400mhz difference to me got my attention. My question now is - cost side, is there any benefit not going for the 13900K? Will the additional e-cores create more problems, or can they just easilly be completely disabled/turned off leaving just the extra 400mhz available as elbow room if someone has money to burn, or are there other negative aspects in going with the 13900K besides finance?

My thought is to go with the i13900K. The reason - it may not give an advantage now and the 13700K is probably enough for now... but I'd go for futureproofing. DCS has been (and continues to be) very heavy in the CPU department. I know that multithreading is being worked on, but I take the approach that I don't believe anything will work until it's actually been released - and is working. Even then, we don't know just how much of it will be effective. As such, that extra headroom the 13900K may give in additional mhz may come in handy down the track. Mind you - I've been CPU bound in many occasions so I'm probably BIAS, but I'd hate for a 4090 to be restricted due to being CPU bound - it's a small extra cost to ensure that you get the most potential you can out of the GPU. Very interested to know what more knowledgeable people think and whether they differ in logic.

Thanks CFRAG for picking up on that problem. Sorry for misleading you @timothyboss, there's a lot more traps for me to learn about with lua it would seem. Thank goodness for the wealth of info shared in these forums. Would it be possible to set a lastran_x stamp instead. Then when starting a script you check to see if the 'other' script has been ran within the last 5 seconds and if it has you skip that instance and wait again. This way it may not end in a deadlock but rather uses timestamps so if something does go amiss - it would reset itself?

OK - I'm not sure what's going on there. I could have sworn that players weren't kicked out of their aircraft when slots were changed, but maybe I've gotten that wrong. Just very quickly without testing - do you have the line ssb.kickPlayers = true -- Change to false if you want to disable to kick players. set to true or false? I'm not convinced this is the culprit, but I'm not in a position to test your mission at the moment, and don't know what you have configured on the server side scripting anyway. Try changing it to false and see what happens if you have it set to true.

It depends on how you code it. But you only have to do it for the client aircraft. My suggestion is instead of coding each aircraft individually - have a standard prefix to start with that allows you to quickly find or get a group/filter of the clients. Then iterate through that group to set the flag. That way, instead of having to do it for every single client, you're only specifying it for each individual airfield. It's a bit more depth in coding - but less code in the end than manually having lines for 600 separate client aircraft/slots, and makes it much easier to add new clients when you need without having to change more code again. (Just add using the existing prefixes to add more aircraft).

I think this is one of the bigger issues we face. People don't understand that AI doesn't understand. (Even though it says it does). It's not cognitive. It doesn't think. I guess decades of sci-fi TV series and movies have probably conditioned us to expect more than what it really is, and when it says it understands - we trust it. Don't get me wrong - what it's producing is darn impressive - and can be very helpful. But the moment people make the mistake that they think they're talking to a machine that actually understands (in the way us humans do) - they've lost the reality of what ChatGPT really is. I found this to be a good intro video for those who seem to think AI is more than it is. I liked your example above as well with the coding that was done. (I've seen it make up functions that it thinks should exist out of thin air too).

Sure. I'm just a stranger on the internet so you know... use at your own risk. Create a text file called BlockUpdate.reg and put the following in: Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00 [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Policies\Microsoft\Windows\WindowsUpdate] "ElevateNonAdmins"=dword:00000001 "TargetGroup"="Windows 10" "TargetGroupEnabled"=dword:00000001 "WUServer"="http://WSUS:8530" "WUStatusServer"="http://WSUS:8530" [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Policies\Microsoft\Windows\WindowsUpdate\AU] ; 'Install Updates and Shut Down' option will be available in the Shut Down Windows dialog box if updates are available "NoAUShutdownOption"=dword:00000000 "NoAUAsDefaultShutdownOption"=dword:00000000 ; False (Do not disable AutoUpdate) "NoAutoUpdate"=dword:00000001 "AUOptions"=dword:00000003 "UseWUServer"=dword:00000001 Create a text file called Restore.reg and put the following in Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00 [-HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Policies\Microsoft\Windows\WindowsUpdate] [-HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Policies\Microsoft\Windows\WindowsUpdate\AU] I did this on Win 10. I think it's fine to use on Win 11 even with the Windows 10 reference, as the target group is just for the WSUS server which.... doesn't exist. (Unless you have a server called WSUS on your domain, then it'll grab the updates from there)

I think it can be summed up as this: ChatGPT is no substitute to learning for yourself. It can be an effective tool to those who already know their field, and a misleading tool to those who use it for areas they don't understand what they're doing. It's very helpful for me throwing code at it when I've been looking at a screen too long and I can't see why something doesn't work (especially if it's down to a single case being incorrect - I hate that about lua). It's like talking to a salesman. It'll say anything. You need to know enough information to know when it's BS'ing it's way through - or when it's actually on point.

Slot blocker is what you want. If used for blocking slots (which is what you are saying you want to do) it will block the slot from being accessed at the time it is selected. If the player already has that slot - it will not kick them from the aircraft. I have used slotblocker in missions where the airfield can be captured by the opposition. This doesn't immediately kick players out of their slot that spawned in an aircraft there - but it will stop them from selecting another slot, or from respawning back if they happen to die, forcing them to choose another slot.

You can set the resources at the warehouse in the mission editor (and view the resources at the warehouse by clicking on the airport in the F10 map whilst playing). There should be a RESOURCES button that appears. This will tell you how many resources are available at that location. (It's possible for airports if they're not set to 'unlimited' to have limited resources and to run out of those resources, or not to even have them in the beginning).

Interesting time to be playing with such scripts as I'm wondering if the multi-threading stuff might be impacting what you're doing. Have you thought of setting a global variable that the other routine refers to and won't execute until the first is finished it's LoGetWorldObjects call. ie, something along the lines of: In your first script: if not lastExportTime or (currentTime - lastExportTime) >= 30.0 then lastExportTime = currentTime while script1_is_running do -- do nothing but wait end script2_is_running = true local o = LoGetWorldObjects() script2_is_running = false .... and if not lastExportTime or (currentTime - lastExportTime) >= 30.0 then lastExportTime = currentTime while script2_is_running do -- do nothing end script1_is_running = true local o = LoGetWorldObjects() script1_is_running = false for k,v in pairs(o) do default_output_file:write(string.format("%.1f,%s,%f,%f,%.1f,%.1f,%s\n", t, v.Name, v.LatLongAlt.Lat, v.LatLongAlt.Long, 3.28084*v.LatLongAlt.Alt, 57.2958*v.Heading, v.Coalition)) end ...Or better still maybe even if you just add an extra if condition to only run that code provided the other one isn't running, as it looks like you're just wanting this to run every 30 seconds anyway?

Just wondering if this is going to be accessible outside of the mission editor. This would be very helpful for those of us who make dynamic multiplayer missions/campaigns (or more-so for the players who have to manually key in each time) where they may be doing their own planning as a squadron on a multiplayer server. DTC for missions is great too, but just wondering if clients will have access to this independent of the mission editor / host? null

I feel your pain. I hated it when Microsoft changed their updates to not offer a 'let me do it manually' or 'download updates but install manually' and knew this was going to cause a lot of pain. My workaround has been to create 2 .reg files. The first one sets windows update to go through a local WSUS server, and the second restores this to factory default, so I can run that, reboot and do the updates when I want. I don't know if this will work with Windows Home though. (I've been using Windows professional). Good to know there's other methods. Thanks.

And so much again when you do it a second time and realise the first wasn't a fluke. It's interesting how our bodies or subconsciousness betray us... When first trying - my grip on the stick was so tight I'd get sore knuckles. My shoulders so tense, holding my breath half the time. Now - I'm relaxed, I'm holding the stick only with my thumb and index finger, doing small movements mostly and the occasional larger one when necessary- all which aids a significant amount in making it easier. The awful thing being that I knew all this while trying to learn how to AAR but do you think I could get my body to comply with what my mind knew. Noooooo.

I think we're being trolled. The arrogance of the concept "everyone else shouldn't need any more options available to them than I need - so DCS should be changed to force that on them" beggars belief that it's anything other than trolling.

There's been a number of very informative responses made, but he seems to only focus on those he can argue his point with which is that no matter any of the above - ED should be releasing the current Open Beta as stable now without any other consideration. I think that's the gist of it. It seems to have nothing to do with what he can do right now, or that he has everything he wants. It's just that ED isn't giving it to him in the way that he wants. (Which comes down to him wanting dcs_updater to call @release instead of @openbeta for him to have the current public release and force the rest of us stable users up even though it may not be ready). Summed up very well. The problem isn't a lack of options. The problem appears to be that ED isn't doing it the way some people think it should be done - even though ED has given them all the options to choose how to do things themselves and ED aren't holding them back, and any change to this way would actually reduce the options available. I don't get it. I've seen a number of posts on this forum where people come across more obsessed with what other people have, or how other people do things (and I guess that includes ED) even though it doesn't affect them at all) - rather than focusing on what does affect them, what options are available to them and ignoring what others have or don't have. The suggestions here wouldn't make any difference to what they want - it would just stop other people from having different options. It's a strange way of thinking. I'm not saying that I think the release cycle can't be improved, or that I'd like to see more focus on restoring bugs before releasing new features. But what's been asked for here isn't that - it's only about throwing Stable out quicker regardless of what issues the current public build has.

Sorry - I wasn't sure. I have seen a number of people actually literally believe what you're saying, or otherwise that Stable follows the same path as open beta, but just a few weeks behind. (Which is wrong, but somehow seems to be understood this way by some). The amount of confusion over how Stable and Open Beta operate on this forum has been considerable, so I thought it best to clarify (and probably good I did since the OP took your post literally too when responding to you). I apologize for implying your post as being literal when that wasn't your intention.

Any chance you could record the last heading of lead, and compare again every 5 seconds. If the heading is within certain parameters you know lead is going straight ahead, so you could do tracking then. If the heading of lead is more than 5° out of the position 5 seconds previous then you know lead is in a turn and thus can ignore the tracking. I believe you can also get bearing as well as distance between two units. (I'm assuming you're using something like MOOSE for this)? With those variables (flight heading, separation distance, separation bearing, and whether flight is straight or turning) you could probably achieve what you're chasing. (If my understanding of what you're trying to do is correct). The only way I'd try tackling something like that is in lua script. There may be someone smarter than me that could find a way of doing it in the ME with flags, etc - but that is too hard for my mind.

I think it's a civil traffic issue. One solution would be to turn civil traffic off, and then place on the map just the trains that you want, where you want and use waypoints to do loops, etc. The only issue with this is that cars will disappear on you as well. A possible solution for this would be to request a feature from ED to have a second option for Civil Trains or similar so you can choose between the two maybe.

Congratulations! Successful tanking is very rewarding once you get there. Good news is - it's only going to become easier from now on for you as you become more familiar with it.

What a refreshing post to read someone who gets it. Thanks Raisuli. Just this week I saw a larger server operator closed down one of their servers in the Asia Pacific area. Reason given "every dcs update is a lottery if something brakes or not". To me, this is one of the key reasons to run Stable on a server. Less chasing of things that are breaking, less updates, let others test the changes publicly before we do. I find it a shame more server owners don't see the light in this and how much easier it is to run Stable than Open Beta with less problems and overload themselves to the point where they give up. Stable isn't perfect - but it's a lot less work maintaining than Open Beta.

Because that's actually wrong. Latest stable isn't the last-but one Open Beta. People don't want to truly understand how Stable and Open Beta works, that's up to them. It's not a difficult concept really and it's being explained. People just don't like it so they choose not to understand it I guess. I can only guess you're just trying to win an argument rather than trying to find a solution to your perceived problem. Either that, or you like complaining about nonsense. There is no problem that you have raised that there hasn't been simple solutions that meet your needs. For some reason you seem to be obsessed at whether the game installed on your PC is tagged 'Open Beta' or 'Stable'. You don't care if it's stable enough for Stable. You have stated you just want the current version of Open Beta to be called Stable now, and even though you can have everything you want - (except a title change) -because ED generously gives us many options. You appeared worried about what ED calls the build you want to run on, and nothing more. At the end, that's as far as your concern really seems to go and honestly - it's getting very tiring - especially for those of us who have taken time out to try and help you to understand what you can do - just to later realise this appears to be more closer akin to trolling than it does having a genuine need and we've wasted our time. I too am waiting for stable to be promoted, and at times I find myself getting impatient. The difference is though - I understand the concept an appreciate ED giving us the choice. For us that do get the concept of Open Beta vs Stable releases, and appreciate having a stable release that is promoted less often - I say "leave it as it is". Everyone at the moment has a choice. All your asking for is choices to be taken away from some other people to suit your ideals more. That's it. I primarily choose to use OB for testing, stable for real flights. If I had access to CB, I'd probably use that for testing - because I understand the concept of BETA being a test environment. I don't have CB access but appreciate that I have OB access before it's promoted to Stable... for testing. I get, and appreciate the difference between the two. Otherwise if people really don't see the need for 2 versions, their is a very simple solution. Get rid of Open Beta. Only allow the public access to Stable. Make them wait longer. Only allow people access to Beta that understand the concept clearly and are willing to participate in a BETA program as testers - instead of those who think BETA means 'quicker access - not a test release'. Honestly - I think that solution would suck - as I'm for people having options to choose for themselves. Not being forced to do what someone else wants.

I have great news for you! You do not need both installed! You can make the decision for ED yourself to virtually promote the current open beta to your current version by \simply running... dcs_updater.exe update @openbeta Then you'll have exactly this. This does not create a second install. Just an update. Apart from having to type in those simple commands - what difference does it make to you if ED decides today to do this, or whether they decide to do this next week if you're happy and want the current Open Beta to be promoted to stable? Then when ED does 'catch up' for you, you can run... dcs_updater.exe update @release ...to reset DCS back to only update with future stable is released (as it will be the same version anyway - so it's just a reconfiguration of the update checks) if you prefer to stay on stable after that. You don't need both installed. Those commands will just reconfigure your current install to either download using the openbeta server, or the stable server. Apart from that - your local copy of DCS will not know the difference.

@ac5 Would you be happy if ED promoted the currently available Open Beta to stable today? If they did that, would that solve the issue you currently face?