Racoon-1-1

@BIGNEWY As a reference I created the R73 scenario again, but now with a player F16 instead. I tried it 10 times and the pilot survived 6 times! So I have a 0% survival rate against a R73 in a F/A-18 and a 60% survival rate against a R73 in the F-16. I don't know why the qa team is happy with the results, when they tested this for hours, but there is definitely something wrong with the hornet damage model. kind regards TEST_F16_PLAYER_SHOT_DOWN_R73_FROM_REAR.miz

@BIGNEWY I created 3 testmissions where a MIG29S is directly behind a Player F/A-18 to test 3 different scenarios where either the player is shot down with a R77, a R73 or a R60M. Always from behind, so the missile explosion is as far away from the cockpit as possible. I tested this 10 times each (non-VR, 90fps cap) and the survival rate of the player pilot was exactly 0.0! I have no mods installed. TEST_F18_PLAYER_SHOT_DOWN_R60M_FROM_REAR.miz TEST_F18_PLAYER_SHOT_DOWN_R73_FROM_REAR.miz TEST_F18_PLAYER_SHOT_DOWN_R77_FROM_REAR.miz

@JermaineRomaguera actually I am pretty sure this is a design decision.

Ok, so the devs seem to get different results than at least some players. Do you know how it is calculated if the pilot dies? That's just a shot in the dark, but is it possible that the framerate has an impact on this? For example to get a smooth flying experience in VR I need to limit the fps to 45. And it could make a huge difference if the calculation just takes into consideration in which frame the missile exploded or where it exploded according to a physics simulation that is just a function of t. I mean since a lot of things are also calculated concurrently for multithreading purposes we could in fact have some kind of race condition here that is affected by framerate. As I said, that's just a shot in the dark and guesswork, but I will try to create some test scenarios and then run them with different fps limitations (and vr vs non-vr) when I am home again. kind regards.

Hey @BIGNEWY, I am practicing a lot of bvr and bfm vs. ai with the hornet lately and whenever I got shot down by a fox1/2/3 my pilot was killed (most of the time mig29A or mig29S with R60/R73 or R77). As a matter of fact I wasn't on a parachute even once in the last 2-3 weeks. That's far from "game breaking" for me, but something seems off here tbh. I am playing in VR btw.. kind regards.

Let's say you have 5 Groups "Tanks-1",...,"Tanks-5" and now you want to spawn them all at once if for example a flag becomes true. In the current state you would have to create a trigger with 5 actions: ACTIVATE_UNIT("Tanks-1"), ... , ACTIVATE_UNIT("Tanks-5"). It would be super cool, if you could create some kind of supergroup that is composed of as many groups as you want. In this example you would have something like SUPERGROUP_1=["Tanks-1", ..., "Tanks-5"] and then you could create a corresponding trigger action like ACTIVATE_SUPERGROUP("SUPERGROUP_1"). It would be absolutely perfect if you could assign these groups with the new multi-selection tool like in a regular RTS for example. Also it would be great if these supergroups could have the regular group options like "Late activation", "Visible before activation", .... . Imo this would be a massive QOL improvement for mission builders. kind regards

And don't forget to set your parking brake before doing the alignment.

I have similar problems when I start DCS on screen (non-VR) with a i7-12700K (which has 'normal' and efficiency cores). In 80-90% of the cases I experience heavy freezes like every 10 seconds already in the menu. What I have to do is to manually un-assign all efficiency-cores from DCS with process-lasso and then also manually re-assign them. I have absolutely no issues in VR tho.

Sorry, I did not intend to make it sound too negatively. "This is feature is going in the right direction and I know it's still WIP." <-- I meant this honestly, and I am pretty sure it is very hard work to implement such a feature into complex game like DCS!

@BIGNEWY This is feature is going in the right direction and I know it's still WIP. But considering that it aims for larger, more complex missions imo it would be pretty important that all flags and the advanced waypoint options are saved correctly, too. Otherwise sadly this whole thing is pretty useless. Even worse, those who don't read the forums will figure out that all their save games doen't work as they think they do so this will definitely also cause some frustration. At least you should label "Save Game" as highly experimental.

ok. Then maybe you don't want a tank to be still able to fire 1 second after the turret was destroyed.

But then you don't need just different zones, but also different and logical behaviour for every single unit in DCS that must be integrated into the codebase without breaking anything. Also If you're in a multithreaded application then everything gets a lot more complicated because you have to wrap your head around weird synchronization problems that simply don't exist in a single core environment where nothing is processed concurrently. You don't want the unit to move 5m after(!) the tracks were destroyed for example. But I am pretty sure the sheer amount of different units in DCS is what really takes the most effort here. As a programmer (with no knowledge in the DCS codebase tho) I would estimate were talking about several months here. And for a flightsim that never had a huge focus on being a tanksimulator at the same time this is quite a lot of work that could be better invested in other things. Personally I think your idea is cool, but at the same time I am pretty sure 95% of DCS players wouldn't care about it.

DCS is already very performance hungry, but it manages large ground battles surprisingly well without your FPS going into the single digits. I am sure that with a more complex damage model for ground units this would be very different. And therefore it would also contradict the dynamic campaign engine they're currently working on in my opinion because this would significantly reduce the possible unit count. Especially for VR users.

Hi everybody, I had a campaign idea, but I basically need infantery units that have a lot more hp than the regular ones. I couldn't figure out how to do it with regular scripting since for some reason the Unit class of the DCS api only offers getter, but no setter methods. So my idea was to make a mod based on the actual existing unit "Infantery M4" which corresponding files are called "soldier_us_00..." inside \steamapps\common\DCSWorld\Bazar\World\Shapes (at least I think so), but I couldn't get it to work in terms of it not showing up in the Mission Editor. The dcs.log file shows no errors regarding it though. (Before that I had faulty code inside it which showed in the log file from which I conclude that DCS actually tries to load this mod) Here is my mod structure \Saved Games\DCS\mods\tech\T800_Mod\Units\T800\T800.lua inside the T800_Mod folder I have the entry.lua file --> ---------------------------------------------- declare_plugin("T800_Mod", { installed = true, dirName = current_mod_path, displayName = "T800 Terminator", fileMenuName = "T800 Terminator", version = "1.0", state = "installed", info = "Adds a T800 Terminator unit with increased durability.", }) mount_vfs_model_path(current_mod_path .. "/Shapes") mount_vfs_texture_path(current_mod_path .. "/Textures") mount_vfs_liveries_path(current_mod_path .. "/Liveries") dofile(current_mod_path.."/Units/T800/T800.lua") plugin_done() ---------------------------------------------- And here is my T800.lua --> ---------------------------------------------- GT = {} GT.Name = "T800" GT.DisplayName = "T800 Terminator" GT.Rate = 10 GT.category = "Infantry" GT.type = "Infantry" GT.countries = { "USA", "Russia", "CJTF_Blue", "CJTF_Red" } GT.shape_table_data = { { file = "soldier_us_00", username = "T800 Terminator", life = 200, fire = {0, 1}, classname = "lLandPerson", positioning = "BYNORMAL" } } GT.visual = { shape = "soldier_us_00", shape_dstr = "soldier_us_00_d" } GT.wsType = { wsType_Ground, wsType_Unarmed, wsType_Infantry, GT.Name } GT.life = 200 GT.desc = { category = "Infantry", displayName = "T800 Terminator", life = 200, rate = 10, mass = 180, -- one chunky metal boi speed = 2, type = "Infantry", attributes = { ["Infantry"] = true, ["Ground Units"] = true, ["NonArmoredUnits"] = true, ["All"] = true } } add_surface_unit(GT) ---------------------------------------------- I have to admit I used chatGPT 4.0 to help me out here a bit while cross checking the forums. So my question is if anybody could help me out with what is missing here and/or if I am even close to a functioning mod. Kind regards and thank you in advance.

Hello everybody, so I fly the A10C for a few years now, but for some reason since I switched to MT (and only if I join a server!), I got this weird new behaviour sometimes where the 2nd (right) engine won't spool up above 30% RPM or even won't spool up at all at the cold start procedure. Sometimes I can fix it by shutting down and restarting the APU, sometimes when I switch off APU gen and left+right gen and requesting ground power from the crew. When the left engine is already running it's also possible sometimes to perform the single engine restart procedure with APU from the manual (p.721). But then very often the "ENG START CYCLE" light on the caution panel won't go off again even tho both engines are running. Nothing really game breaking for me at least, but I like to fly in multiplayer, I absolutely need MT for performance reasons in VR, and I also like to do the cold start procedure in the A10.^^ Especially because some servers actually require it. Also I don't think this is intended behaviour, since this only happens for me in the conditions mentioned above. Let me now if somebody has the same issue, I totally missed a new feature or if you have a solution for this. Kind regards