rogorogo

because this is a list of discord servers (which the actual, the real, the original, the fidelic, the one, this one Cold War Server does not have) and a list of... ..... ..social media.. ..... ..content creators, which the Serverrunner (thankfully) is not. Now there have been ideas brought forward to make an official, endorsed discord server to fit the server scope and the co-admin of the server has a social media presence. So at least one entry would be possible already. It has to be taken into account though what kind of flagshippers the cm functions of ED, aka wääääääääähhhgs and ninenineneinneinNEIN-line currently try to curate and engineer (which is concerning). There seemingly is also a lack of understanding, or rather mis-interpretation what actually is going on in the so-called userbase in general and the existing and potential population base for this Server in particular. Assofar that the assumptions mentinoned create a false perception while actually being mentioned in public create the opposite of motivation. Which is not a problem, which is not a fault, which is neither good nor bad - but for the positive intent unfortunate. But an entry in a table the playerbase does not care about is a sidenote, it should be done but this is not what results in a reinvigoration.

Prince of Persia mission, small detail, Petrovic Reticle is still on full, fyi and thank you in advance.

Normal random interaction with the "Multiplayer" server listing can again cause random internal client freezes. The client goes into a freeze state, while remaining active in the OS. Client can be tabbed to but not interacted with, also does not go "unresponsive". Any interaction like sorting options checkboxing fe "Favorites only" clicking on "Search server box" will cause this. The client goes into freeze and 1fps where before it was running normally with up to 176fps (UI menu). Attached exemplary screenshots also showing that the system itself is not taxed and the OS still registers the client as active.

7 years later and this is still a more than valid request. Whatever the feasible solution would or should look like could be discussed endlessly but achieve nothing but create a pretense by getting lost in tangents. Instead a few simple points of notice should be admonished. this is - as with many other things - another blatant omission of Eagle Dynamics any solutions has to be ingame usable, preferably in-mission for clients with accessible tools serverside, tools and not lua scripting hindering performance this is not a question of "per module" but a centralized feature suite, with modules (be it Eagle itself OR third party providers) being able to dock their module-side functionality based on authoritative standards and with access to proper documentation (proper documentation and Eagle, now there is joke for all eternity) As with many things that would actually not at all require that much effort (role screen, CA slot battlefield information, radar modelling, terrain features, myriad of AI assets, "waypoint mentality", the list is endless) the product provider might think it irrelevant because the majority presses "e" and then post somewhere "what button do 2 find tagetzz broooo" and seemingly seems to more and more cater to that denominator. Yet simple popularity (or populism?) and its herald do not maintain a products USP, features that show intent do, no matter how much of the purchasebase has a perceived yearn for them before their existence.

that seems to be as it should be (cutout from my Windows Menu looks the same) from the last time I had to move my install (quite recently) and managed to kill all my binds nonetheless I seem to remember that the "clean" is now integrated into a repair, offering a cleanup both after a quick and an extensive repair. Btw - the server hung up on the second rotation after the LotATC live too, DM'd all the info I could gather (mission itself again flawless and performant) from the 4 clients connected at the time.

Potential Bug FIGHT ISLAND @Alpenwolf& @rossmum Another warehouse glitch. When REDFOR faction (might apply to BLUFOR too) holds Qheshm Field, all RRR is availabe EXCEPT the Ataka AAM. Again the prompt is just.. not prompting.. at all. Probably again a DCS hotfix/update glitch and the warehouse needs to be replaced (for both factions) aso aso, everything available Thank you in advance for looking that up whenever there is time (also: can't remember if the Petrovich-reticle is minimized on this one already) . P.S: In Oil & Water Petrovich-reticle is still full, just fyi jic 4 bulletpoints

In the (beloved) Smoerebröd-UFO the HUD-Glass can be raised via a lever. This is both possible via cockpit-interaction or keybind. As for the cockpit-interaction (ingame, in-cockpit) of the module, the mousemap for the cursor seems to be placed wrongly. Instead of being placed at/on/over the LEVER, the mousemap is situated at/on/over the HINGE. This results in a rather finnicky mousemapping interaction from the standard cam-position and/or creates the necessity to lean sideways to be able to raise the HUD-glass. While easily manageable with a mouse this can be extra tricky if fe a mouse-thumbstick on a HOTAS is used. The green marker shows the current mousmap area (oversized) while the red marker shows the actual LEVER where the mousemap should be placed. No trackfile needed, reproduction possible 100% in all instances and situational combinations.

like I typed... "not reliably".. and then.. a DCS early access module, by Eagle itself, in DCS o-b... no need to invest too much thought. It might work on some systems if you set the "select next radio" and the "radio pannel up" switch to the same keybind (if there is even a toggle one, cannot remember atm by heart). But again.. not really working as intended and by intent.. more unintentional.

Potential Bug PHONE BOOTH @Alpenwolf& @rossmum can you check the script for objectives completed... two days in a row we had objective complete for blue but neither side actually retook the enemy base.. or destroy a camp... script said "blue completed ALL objectives, blue wins" on two days... script was also completion-triggered, full mission timer would have gone for some more hours in both cases. Server was populated on both sides and people were involved all over. either a typo/ED-hotifx weirdndess or a status message missing (I suspect the former). FLAPS 1-4 was flying BLUFOR, I was REDFOR.. and we both said "huh?" afterwards... He did not get any further sucess messages other than "liberated Nalchik" throughout the map. Thank you in advance!

it weirdly also works if these (and all other other radio specific binds) have NO bind - but not always reliably (but as typed above.. next release aso will have that surely included by itself) and ofc this has to be set (just in case..) does not apply to every installation... There is no crossover with DCS ingame radio... yet.. but as the ingame "radio" that took Eagle 15 years to decide and over 2 years to code is a barebones lobby-chat that could have been pasted from any free keylog lobby on google level with a pedantic and fumbly UI on typical core Eagle levels of usability autism while having ZERO radio functionality but a gazillion of proprietary keybinds PER MODULE (and ofc only some of them) while also mostly not working at all on dedicated servers and randomly breaking other functions that technically should be completely unrelated... DCS users in multiplayer (stuck in its Open-Beta prison) are well advized to stay with SRS for the time being.

As the rain with recent patches has changed and does not affect FPS in the slightest anymore even on threshold systems (hello! my name is rogo an where others have a CPU with a nice first core I have two heavily unionized hamsters in a wheel on constant labor action) the mission map sector looks absolutely stunning now, especially when using basic reshade. The occasional cloud-breaks and changing lighting conditions were great.. as was the grummeling that the f.. windshield wiper switch still does not work and the keybind that works is a secret (not that you actually need it). It just shows how great all this could be if fe Vulkan was applied, radius sim dormancy.. aso aso.. different story. But it also gives hope to see fog again, snow, lighting, heavy wind conditions. Gameplay-wise it would finally also present changing challenges within the same mission (if dynamic at least to a at some point, which is not possible atm), making retention easier and nuance different parts of any loop. Any argument to the contrary - especially with the arguments that can be expected - are dissmissible, show only a lack of understanding and/or an agenda. That unfortunately all this gets negated by the current technical state of some modules is nothing that can be mitigated but also shows wider issues and maybe cellular hypocrisy. Even if LotATC was debugged to be appliocable for TacCom I am not sure some of the isses blatantly showing in the new format to the point of dadaiste absurdity (while an amusing experience in itself it is not one for everyone) could be caged - I would hope but one cannot be certain.

So that bug for the ARC terrain beacons (triggerzones) applies to the Antenna trucks (ATC Trucks) too (where you set the transmit freq in the FM or AM band, set it to loop and have to add a mandadory soundfile in the vehicles context menu) too, am I understanding this correctly ? ( I have no dedicated server, so I cannot test for myself, I just want to fully understand what the current state is, which I admonished fe here: )

POTENTIAL BUG @Alpenwolf & @rossmum: TWO TOWNS mission at timestamp of post, RED FARP, Mi.24 module, Rearm menu Ataka AAM is empty. Not warehouse.dry ("not available") or bled by mission.. there is just no prompt in the AAM menu (""AA Missiles")

The A-4 mod is really a nice addition, as it unfortunately will never be an official module, at least not from this "team". It is also wise to couple it with a Syria mission, as this already is a problem preventer. Thank you and that mod is really not big (I think I should reinstall it) and also quite nice (ground power is an actual generator ... ) I have a different question though: As the placeable NDBs/"free" RSBN channels/"free" TACAN beacons/placeable beacon assets are still a drama ("a little more patience.." - yes, Eagle, it has only been 4+ YEARS, only!) on all maps -> what is the situation with the ATC vehicles (antenna trucks) that are placeable assets and are parked at all FARPs and Roadbases in duplicate (at least) and could be placed at other locations too. Does the loop-transmit with a (strangely mandatory) soundfile work on a dedicated server? And could this - if the loop transmit frequencies are chosen wisely - not be used to have working mission beacons at least for ARK, DISS-15, Eukalypt M-24/M-863 and combinations thereof and in combination with the "fixed" beacons available? (no, please don't ask me about the correct BLUFOR counterpart labels, my Viggen uses smoerebroed alien ufo tech from a timetravel wormhole) Especially for the more challening missions with more players and higher intensity on more barren (PG) or more complex (Syria) maps this would help everyone but especially all rotaries and attackers, while not placing extra burden on the far and few GCI's. It might also help with terrain usage for bomb trucks and GA's when no Merlin/Magic is online or available in asymmetry - imho ofc and make longer legs and approaches interesting (for those that are zen enough and enjoy the full fidelity loop).

bug notice @Alpenwolf @rossmum: current mission at timestamp, "Swedish Delivery". RED FARP SHPORA , Mi-24, Slot 2 - again warehouse bug (might or might not apply to BLUE FARP too. depending what FARP has already been exhcanged). No AAMs, no ATGMs, no gunpods, no fuel tanks available. UB32 pods B-8V20A in limited quantities as set (240 total, that is the rocket total, not the pods, jic). Mission therfore currently unplayable for Hind module (slot 2).

While DCS' atrocious issues are an unfortunate reality - this statement about "real life" is a little bit... well... not how this works... or should work.. for a few, more than just a few decades by now, not by the timeframe the server tries to represent. Unless all involved have/had a pronounced communal deathwish. Not for amour, MBTs, TDVs, MGSs... nor for mechanized, APCs, IFVs, AFVs.... How big of a deal the issue raised "is" in the context of DCS's multiplayer reality could only be determined by empiric data that are statistically significant, which will never be available, despite not actually requiring that large of a sample. For the context of this server it can actually make all the difference though (imho ofc, cellular, subjective, subject to my personal biases of confirmation and preference counteweighed by my individual capability to be intersubjective only to an undetermined summary gradient) - so it actually "is" a "big deal" less in the context of "fidelity" but more in the scope of "loop co-existence and interaction viablity". It might be prudent to remember economics 101's prisoner dilemma and create the organic environmental ruleset based on the outliers, the excessions, and the defaults - not on an idealized notion of a voluntary consensus that is systemically impossible.

I would hope that people and fellow digital fake pilots are exited for what the F-4E (with agile eagle retrofits) is and for what it is not. It will finally be a correct dancing partner/match/adversary for the Mig-21. It has capabilities, character and limtiations.. It also is an era and period correct asset according to the Q&A, explicity stating for once that the DMAS version will be a separate airframe within the same module, next to the agile eagle retrofit airframe. It is in character a BFM brute (maybe even the last of them), it mainly thrusts, and accidentally also flies and thanks to the nosejob is also can pew-pew, a transitionary aiframe. But so is the 21, just with a different concept (fe far heavier GCI reliant). And neither of which could thus far be actually utilized, because DCS as a product makes it extremely difficult to provide the proper scenario cage for it. As long as the battlefield cannot be populated as it would be technically possible (cough.. waypoint mentality vs background LOS/proximity globes with dormancy, multicore, authoritative services aso aso aso aso aso) paired with approach legs that are 150 seconds (none of which is anyones "fault".. that are necessities by product realities and by human nature and time allocation of he limited good of me time), it wil always be extremely difficult to encourage a proper experience organically. If there were proper means available (which - again - technically would have been possible for almost a decade by now) teamwork would also not be far more relevant because of the lack of fixed hotzones but by also breaking up any altitude centroids by sheer neccessity and diversity. But that is not the case, and will not be for quite a while longer. Put the tendency of "airquaking", "gamer mentality" and "meta" () as a sprinkle on top and there is a steep task for anyone trying to provide a diverse loop-scenario and era experience in DCS MP. Not helped by the fact that Eagle themselves is culturally.... "special". Lest we forget that they favour and cater creatures that in surprising uniformity regularly effluviate statements (on audio, on video, in typing) like "I don't care about missions 'n stuff, I just wanna shoot at things " while pretending the opposite with their servers whose proxies enact hardcore crowding-out playerbase-mining despite being lowest-denominator arenas (nothing wrong with that - for those that seek this loop, it is the perfect environment for loop fulfillment and should exist) at peak social media cringe (adtults with the right to vote vyying for the adoration and worship by the underage and the intellectually minor ). But this janiformity has always existed and was always enacted, only the medium applied and the methodology iterates (again, human nature.. not good or bad.. it just is a reality). So yes, in outcome you will still see tigers bunnyhop around, with their wrong RWR array and many other things - but at least not-only tigers with a sprinkle of smoerebröd-ufo.. I mean, just a few days ago I flew around in my Viggen, since for once numbers allowed me to do so. I had completely forgotten how it works (and no, I never press "E", it is the button for w***s) and it did end accordingly (as if it ever would not ). But I did come across a Mig-29 (A, I hope). It had me long tracked on EO (as it should), in lookdown, and did a proper single pulse IFF check (as it should, and since I know who it was I would have excpected no less ). Single.pulse.IFF.check... and my RWR went chirp-chirp. and I not only knew what was going on and where but looking there had me not only visually aquire but also enjoy the steamy cloud of impending doom by launch transition (note2self: you may want remember to bring the CM pod when going sightseeing without a customized datasette... you absolute r***d ). Which shows how great the AJS is - but the AJ would have not insta-processed this information this way this quickly from a single.pulse.IFF.check. But again, as the Phantom (later maybe a naval module as per Q&A) will be available as an era and period correct item, there will be also those that will just enjoy the fidelity - from 2025 onwards. And suitable, period-correct, fidelic modules are one step to encourage players to play the scenario, to enjoy the unique aspects of the era and the airframes visceral experiences and limitations. They also help shift out-scope loops to organically take place closer or withing the scenario. And maybe one day Eagle might introduce practices and methodology in PM, franchise standardization and product for market game-design (and as a combat flight simulator DCS very much is a gaming product by industry and character), apart from sensibly populating their playable asset scope - and it only took them 15 years to understand that and that actual sales sells more in numbers and profit, while creating retention and seeding expansion, and also accept the fact that PvA is the future, for everything, and "gamemasters" (if a product provider defaults and offhands that role to its consumers) need systemic and proper tools and tools to set boundaries for what the product can do.. not wonky hodgepode by lua. And then we can all enjoy DCS even more. DCS and world peace ;).

Not that anyone will care or answer from Heatblur - but the sole relevant question should at least be asked once: Gero Finke is heavily involved in this module at least on a consultancy level, right, Right? (Because said expertise combined with Heatblur coding would guarantee an outstanding module, imho ofc)

One shall never tease the wrath of Kommandant Kat. When and if the dominant miltary superpower of the pan-asian sector once decides to come out of their contemplative state strolling the plains of not only around Ayers Rock the western hemispheres' clandestine dictators might consider an alliance of the master races. And master races never take lightly to being taunted - and never take prisoners.

and example (just an example) via search function using the term "beacon": And before a reply "this is a multiplayer bug" is typed - when reported as a systemic bug in scope it was feedbacked as "you have to report this for the map concerned", when reported for a(ny of the) map(s) concerned a feedback of "this has nothing do to with the map", when reported in mission editor the feedback was "it works" and when reported in non peer2peer "multiplayer"... nothing happens.. for years (naturally). And as there is no proper bugtracking (and please do not even pretend there is one internally or semi-externally.. redunant insular open office files with arbitary structures are neglibile, as are forum threads) - this can very easily be in a merrygoround until forgotten due to lack of further reports simply being drowned by frustration. But as - thankfully - the true Cold War era and maybe even earlier eras are finally seeing a more cohesive approach and fleshing out, this backlog item (and not only this one) should receive suitable attention, proactively. This includes making the functionality available in theory a proper line-item functioning realiter with a proper label.. instead of a sort-of-but-not workaround that does not work for a basic fidelic issue (FARPs, FOBs, RoadBases, Hallmarks, shifting navigation setups aso aso aso).

just leaving this here...

ahem.. are you ok? What is the purpose of this unnecessary and inflammatory typing - showing not only quite the lack of basic manners but also blatantly ignoring simple facts. The F-16 in DCS has - unlike the F-5 with incorrect components - the same problem the AJS-Viggen has (which i just blew up in 25 seconds ago btw.. before there is any more "us" vs "them") in being not an AJ-37. DCS has a "somewhat F-16 C as a module, that is Block 25 to 52, with the very first plane of Block 25 having its service trials in mid 1984. The Cold War F-16, or the "Mig-Killer" as you refer to (up to the 29A) as thought out by the "Light Figher Mafia Thinktank" a certain Mr Pierre Sprey claimed to be a major part of (both of which is only true to some gradient but still the most meritable claim of Mr Sprey at least) was the F-16 A and maybe B, that is Block 1 to 20. Just because they look the same on the outside does not change the fact that they are VASTLY different airframe in capabilities, avionics, armaments, turbine, everything - including the AJS. That is like comparing the Saab Draken of ye olden times with the flying antiques show of the Austrian airforce (until the Eurofighters that can only VFR and always be the used ones delivered as the stopgap until the fresh ones came off the line that will be paid for nonetheless.. but that is a different and quite fascinating story) - just because they look the same does not mean they are the same... And any late 50s and 60s Draaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaken pilot would have quite salivated about the gunsight optics and TC alone... So please.. before making such divise blanket statment, educate yourself at least on Wikipedia level. Alternatively there is a server where such toxicity and things like "meta" and other things are quite encouraged... but that is "Cold War" in name only... And I am only typing this because I seem to remember that you have been told exactly this, about this module, by someone else before.. at least once.

What is the status of the bug with ME placeable NDBs (non directional beacons) not working on the Persian Gulf map? I can remember the issue being reported 2 years ago, yet to this day none of them seem to work for anyone (both ARC and TACAN, latest personal tests with ARC in multiplayer with correctly placed and "working" beacons which no module can pick up). And does this have to do with the general map bug of fixed location beacons (NDBs) being coded in Hz instead of Mhz (typo-bug, as also present on Syria for a while, seemingly coming from and Eagle keylog being used as a baseline by Ugra Media)? This bug is relevant as for any mission scenarios that are above the absolute lowest denominator being able to home in on a road base or FARP when other means are not available or in DRIFT can be quite relevant (especially when forced to use terrain masking). Moreso since the PG map is quite empty and repetitive in many areas making terrestrial navigation especially at deck and even at angels an issue. An earnest update - even if it reads "we had no time/no ressources for that" - would be appreciated to at least know what the status is.

You are very correct in your analysis imo. To ease your mind this actually has been reported several times and in relation with other issues on top where it tends to stack up to the trimlock/release lock issue. Unfortunately as there is no proper bugtracker for anything Eagle and due to their "unique" way how they react and treat bug-reports, all those mostly have become part of a re-enactment of an Ian M. Bainks novel instead of merging the reports. Which is a shame because I seem to remember that there was some oneliner down-com in there somwhere acknowledging the issue (because once again, no standardization of anything anywhere) due to a concept issue in the code approach for this module (because when there is no practices, no mandatory documentation.. anything seemingly gets started from scratch every single time) and they would have to "rethink", despite a reliable and live.market tested keylog for a comparable module (in this functionality in-module and out-product) of the very same category by the very same module provider and franchise holder and -coordinator being in existence to iterate on and progress forward in concept and coding (imagine a SciFi Bridgecrew conference room picture here please). It seems from an outside perspective that the peripheral device layer (standard joysticks with central position return springs) and the thus present in-module logic (cyclic with motor accentuators / servos to arrest cyclic position to trimstate with two different input systems, aka the APdampener channels and the manual inputs in the servos) of how to fidelically represent the airframe and its systems in the module seem to briefly fight each other. They may even be somewhat grey area mixed in coding instead of being strictly separated into different spheres, who knows. Which is why we have to endlessly retrim especially with median to average peripherals until we achieve a neutral or desired trimstate without the "input overflow" - which you actually described far more suitable as "added input". That this is not more widespread in reporting has more to to with <see very above> than anything else - and those contributing are in consequence often less likely to actually consider and/or understand the complete context. So we can only hope that at some point this will be mitigated by either being adressed or by some semblance of standardization and practices slowly gaining a foothold (see fe missiles.. in intent at least and at last).

wow... just... wow... maybe this is actually a Finnish Viggen.. thus it's alien technology. I mean, the AJS has occationally levitation effect munitions and superoptimized hardpoints creating aggressive additional forward momentum by not only creating a null-atmosphere but actually a negative space... sort of a micro blackhole. So lift-surfaces and components in quantum fluctuation and persistent existence state of Schrödinger is the next logical step. SAAB Defense - bringing the future to you - NOW! ( I should really repair my lawn ornament 9-3 2.0 TS - after all it was "born from jets" too) P.S. But apart from the sardonic lightheared quip - thank you for the last update to the Viggen module, it is a unique airframe and it would be nice to have an actual AJ version of it by some option within the suite, not a not-at-all and post era fake one by warehouse and pylon settings.