Poulet67

Wow that is a lot of text. Sure, everyone has an "ideal vision" of how DCS should look at the finish line, but there is also reality. Reality is, even the best programmers in the world can't just will software into existence and DCS will never be 'at the finish line'. It takes a LOT of work. Like weeks and months sometimes to do things that on their own are not at all impressive. You seem mostly concerned about people using 3rd party voice chat for "cheating" or being concerned that it doesn't simulate real life conditions (that is way too much text to read so I kind of had to infer the bulk of the content): In multiplayer the server admins choose how they want their servers to run... They can mod it out the wazoo or run DCS vanilla. The player base will flock to whichever server they like the best. That is just the way it is, unless DCS drastically changes their multiplayer system (and I pray they don't, or at least leave our server based implementation alone as separate mode of multiplayer). So if you as a player think SRS doesn't accurately simulate line of sight or power decay effects due to radio wave propagation you are free to find a server running a VoIP package that does, or make your own. I really don't see the issue here. If ED does somehow manage to complete 5 years of development goals in 1 and by the end of next year they have the most sophisticated "radio communication simulation on top of VOIP ever seen", along with OverlordBot, CSAR integration and all other features that players enjoy and server admins require that they get with SRS, the player base will naturally gravitate towards them, as they should. I will also eat my socks if that happens. Instead of this, they could spend the developer hours on: -Fixing the many many bugs that are still outstanding -Upgrading the game engine so it can use more than 1 core (vulkan or otherwise) -Add more calls to the scripting API so modders can make even more brilliant things that players enjoy -Improve the base game (dynamic campaign anyone?) -Improve the AI -Finish supercarrier -Work on a popular module -Improve some of the ungodly bad training missions -Add training missions to modules that don't have them -Work on the "one map" thing they seem to want to do ...and so on and so forth. It seems to me to be really silly to commit yourself to work on something that there is already a solution for, just so you can say it is yours now. At least while there are still so many other valuable (and pressing! - 4 year old carrier TACAN bug anyone?!) things to do.

Agree, please don't shut out modders

I support this. Eagle Dynamics: We need better scripting API support, across the board.

I second this request, however be advised this has been a wished for request probably since multi-player was ever a thing.

I developed a lua script to try and implement this functionality, however I haven't touched it in several months and find it hard to find motivation if ED is just going to (someday) implement the functionality anyway. I will share the link with you if you wish the see it... It is not well documented and I would probably have to guide you through the setup as I never really got it past the proof of concept stage. However even with that consideration, one can never hope to restrict (or even account for) things like targeting pods and and fuel tanks. See my post in this forum for more info. I suspect if they fixed this aspect of the API, community developers (perhaps such as myself) could/would actually develop some scripting to make such a thing possible. Last I checked, MOOSE had a warehousing functionality, but it was limited in what it could really do. Best of luck

It has almost been a year now... The new grpc server has exciting possibilities. Unfortunately this still prevents some basic level equipment/asset management from being available. Is there any chance this would get some attention?

Anyone out there checked Marianas? Post anything you find here I guess

Been experiencing this as well

I was fairly certain all modules (should, at least) have their tooltips for different switch positions like so: TOP/BOTTOM LEFT/MIDDLE/RIGHT At least almost every module I have used seems to follow this convention. This seems to be reversed on many switches throughout the Hind, most notably on the engine start panel.

Yeah, after a few attack runs he stopped giving me target lists all together. The sight would show up in my HUD pointing where I was telling him to search though. I may have outmaneuvered the gimbal (kept forgetting I have to micro manage that from the pilot seat too...) so I think it may just be an unresponsive implementation of that. I will test more later.

I almost wonder if this has something to do with combined arms, all the control bindings from that module are inconsistent with how aircraft are done and this sight looks like it may have been ripped from that code base.

I noticed this as well, it seems to bug out and flip back into the cockpit as well (probably due to this weird coupling)

Was having a hard time using the missile sight until I realized it was bound to my controller, stick pedals , HOTAS slew and mouse all at the same time. Even though I have nothing bound to "Aiming Station Left/Right" or "Aiming Station Up/Down" in my axis binds.

Same thing I said in the other thread specifically about electrical issues: The electrical system (shutdown/ power up) in the operator cockpit appears to me to be triggered by collective position instead of rotor RPM. At least after start up.

Just try it, when I was flying it was constantly conking out every time the pilot reduced the collective.