Dangerzone

Agreed. Going from past experience - if it's not in now... we probably have a 2 yearstm. wait on our hands - and that is if our request is listened to. There seems to be a trend that once a feature is released, only pressing bugs are considered. Don't expect any future enhancements / changes for a significant period of time. It'll be filed away under WIP. At least with this option we still have the ability to disable it and go back to the previous option. Hopefully they won't remove that feature prematurely like they did with the spotting dots.

Thanks for the clarification. That makes more sense. Here I was assuming the lack of API was only affecting us 'external' scripters/coders/modders...

And here I still use OvGME, because if it ain't broke... I don't wanna fix it.

Was this on SP or MP? Did you have any other AI aircraft that are in the sky at the time?

ED may be reluctant to update the manual yet as they may not even know themselves - especially if fog is a WIP, as parameters might change with each update/patch moving forward. Probably better asking for ED to throw us a bone here, or otherwise for the community to figure it out and share info here.

IDK if Polychop frequent these forums, but it's PC, not ED that would be doing the fix I would imagine, so might be better to look them up on their discord. (Being a 3rd party dev - they may also be more interested in resolving it in a more timely manner if they're aware of how bad it is)?

Aah - that explains the 40 years in the wilderness. And it may be the first recorded instance in history of men refusing to stop and ask for directions. So we've got maps for modern warfare. Cold warfare era, WW2 era... and now 2000BC era? Does this mean the 'Chariots and horses' asset pack is near completion?

I don't think that's necessarily being pessimistic - just managing expectations. One thing I've mentioned here that has helped my frustration levels is that I've had to lower my expectations of DCS in order to maintain a healthy mindset, and decide if I want to use DCS for what it currently is now. In my minds eye I know what DCS could be... but it's not... so I need to live in reality of the here and now. There's a youtube video going around at the moment that I think shares this concept - of DCS being a digital museum, but it's been used for more than intended which creates problems. I think there's some merit to that mindset. We also need to consider that we no longer have a stable release (just a continued Open Beta). Playing semantics may word the other way around, but I think it's pretty obvious that the community is being used for beta testing now with DCS, and as such I think DCE is a long way off. It's getting harder to maintain existing missions as being workable as more things are bugged out (especially for scripting with events, etc) that are not being addressed. Seeing Enigma wear out, RJ give up, the change in CFRAG's enthusiasm here (as well as the change in enthusiasm with other dev's and mission designers I converse with) to name a few, I can only imagine what ED Dev's are going through behind the scenes trying to develop a far more complicated DCE system on the platform in it's current state. My guess (hope) is that the dual development between DirectX11 and Vulkan is creating a lot of these bugs, and that with Vulkan we will see these bugs resolved. If correct, then I don't expect to see the DCE until well after these scripting bugs have been fixed, and Vulkan is released. (IIRC - it was mentioned that Vulkan needs to come first anyway, so that gives that thought some possibility)? If so - I think you are managing your expectations, as opposed to being pessimistic, as we could well be talking another 4-5 years away at a guess, as Vulkan needs to be released first, and then the bugs ironed out. As above, I suggest manage your expectations. Even if it was released now - there's no guarantee that it will be usable outside open beta testing for some time. Expectations of ED as to what a DCE should entail could be completely different to ours. It could also be released in Early Access, and contain numerous bugs that make it unworkable for what you're looking for. As an example - consider the supercarrier. The Airboss (which half a year on still isn't usable in VR). Or the recent release of the plane directors and the complications that various bugs are causing that may take quite some time to get reseolved. Or take Dynamic Spawns for an example. My expectations were that this would allow us to have a more dynamic experience where we could setup FOB/FARP's as new spawn points in game at realtime, and that the game would be more dynamic according to how the players did things. Reality was that ED have decided not to include that as an option (I can only assume intentional given that I found a very easy way to 'hack' this with a couple of variables in a .lua file but it's denied and hasn't been addressed since) - so our expectations and ED's plans can and often are very different at times. The general pattern seems to be to release something to the public in an Open Beta state - and then take a long time to work and iron out the kinks. And while I don't like this approach - I have to acknowledge that I've purchased numerous modules in "Early Access" - so I can either get frusturated, or change my expectations. I'm not expecting a smooth day one experience with the DCE, but rather it being released to the public for open beta testing, and like other modules and functions not containing all the functionality we're expecting, and also taking no small time to get those bugs resolved. This isn't to say that the DCE won't be good. Just to say that like the waiting for release, we need to keep our expectations in check by observing ED's current development cycle and maintain our expectations accordingly to avoid disappointment. DCS is a game best played focusing on enjoying what we have now - not looking forward to something that may be many years away. There's an old proverb "Hope deferred makes the heart sick". The best thing I believe is to enjoy what we have in front of us, and allow ourselves to be pleasantly surprised if we see releases of things we long for - without holding and waiting on to them so tightly that it causes us to start resenting DCS. After all, DCS is an incredible game, and unique - nothing comes close to it. It can be easy to take for granted what we have (which is pretty incredible), due to our disappointments with our own level of expectations.

Does anyone know if this has been acknowledged by ED as a bug and there's intentions to fix - or whether there's been official response that this is 'correct as is', and the Airboss station is only going to be supported for 2D?

Zildac's post re Malwarebytes is definitely the place to start. Failing that, installing an interactive firewall (numerous antivirus programs have them), and only allowing DCS communication out might also stop them, if they're loading the ads over the internet. To test - you could disconnect from the internet and run DCS locally and see if the ads still persist. But boy - that's a lot of effort to go to with malware to put ads up... in VR of all places! What are the ads for? If they're any international companies, I'd be keen to know - in order to avoid using those companies (like a particular company spamming these forums lately)?

This shows up absolutely awful for me in VR (4090 with Crystal Light), to the point where I've stopped flying the Kiowa now, hoping/waiting for a fix. I wasn't aware of the MSAA trick. Handy to know as a workaround, but since I fly numerous aircraft, not something I really want to rely on. Have PC made any announcements as to whether they're considering working on this, or adding an option to enable/disable TV bands, etc?

I'm fairly sure that you can. Sorry - I don't have the information available at the moment (TBH - it's been a while since I've flown the Kiowa or done a lot in DCS), but I'm certain that I've flown before and viewed the TV feed from drones in the Kiowa. Edit: This might help

I also don't think the S3B is being detected (real too - not static) as I spawned in ontop of an AI unit with the latest update using dynamic spawns on a MP server.

True. Dynamic wasn't the best word to use. And don't get me wrong - I'd love to see this as well. I'd like to have 'alternative routes' for all the spawn points, and have it selected based on the next available cat as well. Not only would this open up options for your request, but would also allow dual landing and launch operations at the same time (redirecting all spawns to cat1 and cat2 accordingly) during recovery operations. The main point I was making is that they're apparently so far over budget already that I doubt we're going to see major changes to functionality from what we've already got. I would be delighted to be wrong, but considering carrier ops is a small part of DCS compared to the overall gameplay (only affects 2 out of ??? modules, thus a much smaller % of players), plus the over budget expenses already, plus the current additional bugs that have been introduced... I'm just suggesting to maintain expectations accordingly.

Are you in VR? Airboss is only functional for 2D players. VR users are unable to interact.

I’d say unlikely. Maybe if they developed the option for dynamic pathing where each spawn location could go to any cat (the next available one) it could be different, but they’ve opted with the fixed route. So if they lock out now catapults, you’ll get situations where players or AI spawn in and then can’t be directed anywhere. Given that their budget for this feature has been exceeded by 4x as well, it seems what we already have is way more complicated than first envisaged. I’d say we’ve seen what’s intended.

That's a good writeup of a number of bugs that have been experienced. The plane directors definitely has potential. I'm not sure how much attention your report will get though, as it covers numerous bugs in the one bug report. Might be worth having a separate bug report per bug that you've encountered? I wasn't aware of LCAS+P (only LCAS+t). Thanks for bringing that up. Do you know if this fix issues where your salute doesn't work when first spawned in, and you can't get the wheel chocks removed on the F/A18's?

Hi, Situation For some time now the supercarrier has had various issues that can occur that breaks the carrier. Jet blast deflectors get stuck, or catapult operators won't recognize an aircraft lined up at a carrier. For the most part this works well, but there are times (especially in Multiplayer) where this can be broken, and requires a mission restart to fix the issue. Now with the introduction of plane directors (which I love) - it seems that the risk of a carrier getting stuck has increased as now we can also get stuck in parking and unable to even remove the wheelchocks which we have experienced since the release of plane directors. Request Can we please have the option for a carrier RESET option that would just reset the carrier's state with nothing in the pattern, or on the catapults. (Maybe the same as Ctrl+Alt+Shift+T, but for all aircraft both on deck, and in the stack). It would be great to be able to reset the carrier so that: All inbound aircraft or aircraft that are in the pattern are removed from the stack. (They would need to call inbound again to reestablish themselves in the queue/stack. For AI aircraft, they would be rejected and divert to the nearest available airbase). All aircraft on the catapult (or perceived to be on a catapult) are removed from the catapult and transported back to the parking bays. And any other variables that are locked are released. If the above is too difficult to achieve, then can we just have any aircraft that are on the carrier occupying catapults (causing directors to be locked up, or JBD's to be locked up) reset/despawned, and planes in the pattern despawned and for players their client slot released. It would be great if the reset button can be called by: A menu option in the Airboss slot, (that can be enabled/disabled in the mission editor) and An API call made by Script, so server operators can make provision to call this using different methods. This would allow server operators to password protect airboss slots to stop randoms from creating a muck, or allow it to be executed using other methods by API to avoid abuse. (Also, it could be an optional setting in the mission itself so that mission designers can decide whether they want it there at all or not). Edit: Failing all that, even just an option where we can set the carrier's mode between recovery and launch operations. (Again via Airboss menu or API) would be a great start. If recovery ops are underway and it's forced to launch operations, then inbound will be rejected/diverted to alternatives (including those already in the pattern). If the carrier is force-set to recovery, then spawning would be denied with message "recovery operations are in progress" or similar until either the stack is cleared, or the carrier mode is force-switched again). Justification The supercarrier has been having ongoing issues for years (prior to plane directors) - especially on multiplayer servers. Situations where a weekend squadron (or multi-squadron) event that can go on for multiple hours or even the whole day, with many people with weeks or months of planning can be completely broken due to the carrier getting into locked states. (As no doubt can 24/7 multiplayer servers with carrier ops). I recognize that these situations especially make it difficult for ED to diagnose and resolve, because it's on multiplayer servers where tracks don't often help (or are too large and complicated), and that these issues are not simple to fix. Yet - this is something that can (and has often) completely broken missions and has existed for years. It's reasonable to expect that the issues are going to increase given the added complication of logic with the plane directors that this situation could remain for years to come. (And that's what I've already observed over the last few days). This doesn't negate that I'm sure the ED Dev's will work towards fixing this, but this will give a much needed option both for those that use plane directors, and those that don't use them (but still suffer JBD stuck issues, etc) a workaround allowing the ongoing use of the carrier without spoiling a mission mid way or requiring the whole mission to be restarted (just to potentially have the same issue occur again).

No problems here in Australia. Are those that are having problems able to advise where they are located, as per BN's post - they have various CDN's around the world, and since others are getting good speeds - it definitely points to an issue with the traffic between you and your local CDN. Providing your location may help ED be able to diagnose and resolve the issue with particular CDN's. Alternatively, you could try using a fast VPN to skip to another part of the world and see if it updates faster as a quick workaround.

Aah - so you're talking single player specific missions where you are hot started on the catapult? IDK, but if you turn off plane directors, does that revert to the old way, or have DCS changed this for all scenarios? Alternatively, does Left Ctrl+Alt+Shift+T hot-take you back to a parking bay so you're able to rearm from there as a workaround?

I thought height was the thickness of the fog (how thick it is from sea level to the top).

I'm really wrapped with the visuals I'm getting from the new fog physics. From taking off and landing on the carrier in thick conditions to a more medium fog on the countryside at dawn with the sun low on the horizon. Flying through Dubai at night with the fog layer as well, and buildings sticking out the top is real cool too. In VR - this is so much more immersive. Nice work ED! For now, I'm using manual mode until I can get more clarification/information on how the auto will work better and what parameters to put into it. The two things I'd love to see added are: An option to have the fog patchy, (so it's not a blanket through the whole map at the same AMSL altitude), and greater option with the base and height. Less restriction on the fog height / more options with base and height - so it can be done for inland/mountain areas. I'd love to lower the fog to less than 300ft too. (I've seen thick fog fog numerous times where I'm driving my car and the fog is literally at the height of my headlights at night. You can't see the road more than 100m ahead, but you can see clear in the distance above the layer. Spooky and ultra cool to wittness. I've also seen fog where the base is off the ground by a few meters - so there's a clear patch. I know technically this could be called 'cloud' - so it would be nice to be able to put in fog/cloud layers with no restriction on the base altitude). I'd be keen to know if these are already available in the 'automatic' mode as opposed to manual.

I don't know much about Vulcan itself - but my best guess is that ED are trying to do a migration within the current code - so that the same code is compatible between the two (as opposed to a complete re-write of DCS from ground up and a day-one changeover). If so - it would make sense that as they make changes to the current code to be Vulkan compatible, they could mess up the parts that interact with the current framework. If not - I don't understand why else things so many things are being broken and not fixed in a timely manner. Even so - I admit, this is compete hypothesis, but it's the only conclusion I can come up with that makes sense - besides the ED doesn't care option - and I'm working on being optimistic and giving ED the benefit of the doubt with this one. (Either that, or like a number of fish in Egypt, I'm living in denial).

I'm expecting this to remain until Vulkan is out. Actually - I'm hoping this will remain until Vulkan is out. The reason I say I'm hoping is because I'm hypothesizing the reason it's broken has to do with Vulkan development (or some big development behind the scenes) and that it's already identified as 'fixed' within Vulkan, but would take too much resources to try and fix with the current state of the development so it's left 'as is' for now. And the reason I hope that's the case, is that I don't want to consider the alternative - which is that ED just doesn't care that they broke this (and other functions) and that this is the new way of life from now. Perpetual unstable DCS with introduced bugs that once broken, won't be touched for many moons, and by the time it is, other bugs will be brought in. Considering this isn't the only thing that's been broken for some time, and that there are numerous things that were working, and have since been broken and remains for years - I would much rather hope and think that all these things that have been broken is due to a good reason / some practicality we're not aware of (such as it being fixed in the Vulkan builds already being worked on) - which means that there is a day is coming when not only are these things fixed, but we'll also get out of this hole where when things are broken, they're not looked at for years. If I'm wrong, and this is the new norm for DCS's future (especially with no stable release anymore), well, the future won't be looking bright. So here's me... hoping that's the reason.

Honestly, I'd prefer it NOT released today. If they found issues yesterday on the day it's supposed to be released, they've given one day for the dev's to diagnose and resolve the problem. Who knows how much time is left (if any) for the Closed Beta testers to test the latest release. Certainly doesn't seem like enough time. Twould be OK if this was an Open Beta release to push it through so quickly, but given this is a Stable Release updating - 24hrs (or less given the dev and build time) doesn't seem near long enough for thorough testing - CB'ers to get it up on their closed servers, run through their scripts, missions, etc - and take time to test in both single player, and multiplayer... Please ED - take as long as the Closed Beta testers need to test the final build before releasing. If that's another week - as much as I'm hanging out for this - I'd much prefer a stable release than a rushed build.