arteedecco

I probably am not going to be the one to provide you with a definitive answer to your question, but isn't it impossible to operate a vehicle *unless* the player owns Combined Arms AND you have set the Mission Editor (ME) mission settings to allow player operated vehicles? In other words, I don't believe you can do this outside of CA and ME. However, I am not a mod dev and I am basing my reasoning off of what I know from the SSE (link to wiki). I will be curious to see what the answer is!

Yeah, saw that and did a double-take.:book: Can't wait to try it out! Way to go ED!!! :thumbup:

Hooray! We are saved! You can now get player names of Units. Release 1.2.4 contains many new SSE additions including.... [i]Unit.getPlayerName()[/i] function details here... Full SSE 1.2.4 SSE release log: http://en.wiki.eagle.ru/wiki/Scripting_Engine_Changelog#Simulator_Scripting_Engine_Changelog_1.2.4_.28DCS:_World_1.2.3_-_1.2.4.29

Point is... pretty much anything is possible and not even far-fetched when you account for physics. If this is a SIM, then simulate. Just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean it couldn't, or won't. Linked from SLD, here. Some vids: Vid 1 . Vid 2 . Dirt takeoff. C-130 Carrier t/off / landings U-2 Carrier t/off / landings From wikipedia here. Video of C-130 rocket assisted t/off landing, here. Huey "FARP" photo.

^^ Didn't say "perfect"... just possible. Maybe put a ping limit in-place ... or a warning / alert to let people know they are going to potentially experience lag / warping. If it were impossible, ED would have come out and said it... we're simply discussing the details of making it happen. I think everyone agrees it would be nice to have. As GGTharos said... features=time. If they can do it and maintain a high enough integrity to the sim experience then I imagine they'll do it. Simply hoping they'll look into it in detail again (post FC lessons learned etc) and see if there's a way.... sooner rather than later.

Then make the FARP invisible. That achieves my feature request. Also your categorization of unrealistic is off. Open the ME and try to place a CH-47 anywhere on the map other than a FARP or an airfield. Now that... is unrealistic. What if a designer wants to make a mission that is a continuation where a copter or other vehicle starts where it ended in the previous mission... well with the ME as it is today I can either create a FARP (which is fixed as four pads and is very unrealistic for all conceivable scenarios), or I can create an airborne copter and then make it land again, which is a workaround. I'm simply stating something I would like to see in the sim to make it better; a feature which is included in other very noteworthy sims (FS and Arma, for example). It would be very handy to have the ability to place a vehicle anywhere you want without being forced to lay down a FARP (as it is currently implemented with four pads and uneditable dimensions).

I understand the current limitations of the SIM design. I am advocating for more flexibility. Just make it so you can lay-down a "mobile spawn point". It is conceivable that an aircraft could be deployed in a mission scenario w/out a FARP. Again, thinking of ARMA, just let me place the vehicle wherever I want and let the SIM handle the game physics / ramifications. If I place it in soft dirt... then I would expect the craft to have problems and probably not be able to takeoff; fine.. that is expected. However, the limitation of having to have a FARP to deploy ground-start aircraft should be eliminated.

Like I said... Yes, you can land anywhere (lol), but not what I'm talking about. Yes, I'm sure that FARPs will support Harriers... not what I'm talking about. I'm saying... ME should allow me to click on the map anywhere and put a plane (ground start, not airborne) there without having to spawn a FARP (in its current implementation).

^^ Thanks for the responses @blkspade and @GGTharos That all makes sense. So is there a difference between DCS and ARMA2 for example, in terms of why they've got it and DCS doesn't yet? Is it just that for ARMA they decided to stick with the mutli-human playable aircraft from the beginning?

One thing I wish they'd add to the ME is the ability to place aircraft starting positions off airport. You should be able to put a spawnpoint wherever you want and have a setting for "cold" or "warm" start... or "airborne". Would help a lot... wish we had it today for helos not just FARPs. I know this is wrong thread... but you made me think of this wish of mine again!!! :) Cheers!

What are some examples of oddities... and you're just talking from playing experience, right? Yeah... why ever did they not design in MP (multi-human) playable vehicles from the beginning? I guess cause A-10C was originally based on the software they wrote for the US ANG SIM / training? So no need for MP in same craft... do I have my history right? Hmm... see I don't think there's that much more really. Each player has the same code-base... most of what needs to get handled for fidelity is done client-side... and simply needs a state update indication from the other person in the craft. So let's see... F-15E example... Backseater locks up a target on the radar... state change to pilot player... pilot player gets state change indication and their game client handles all the "fidelity" of mapping out what happens next. High volumes of data back and forth between clients would come from bullets, missiles, projectiles... and aircraft and vehicle positions... configuration changes. That would be significant, but certainly nothing more than ARMA. I mean... the fidelity all comes in on client side... so seems to me it's just a matter of writing the code... nothing insanely unique to DCS. Is my analysis off?

Yeah, regular weekly updates is a good call and will do a lot to help out those who were feeling a little, "left in the dark." It's a good move all round.

Okay, so help me out. I've been ruminating on your post... What am I missing... ARMA does this without issue. Yes... serious lack of systems fidelity... so is that where they get the "savings" in lag / performance they need to make it possible? And even more simple... what about all the other (much older) sims that allow multi-human playable craft (WWII games with bombers and gunners, etc... no noticeable issues). And how is this different from BF series... all the way back to BF1942, BF2... and on. What is the difference between the problems all those other titles have faced / overcome and what ED is up against for multi-human playable craft? Thanks for the insight.

Or, UH-1s are returning to base after dropping troops at LZ and stumble across one or more attack choppers. I mean... we're not all on the US side of the house in all missions right? And UH-1s were made and sold en-mass. So... maybe you're the poor SOB in the Mi-24 who runs into an A-10 (for example). Point is s*#t happens, plans fail, AWACS GCI coverage is imperfect, etc. It's not impossible or even that unrealistic really... especially in a special forces type scenario where you're inserting troops behind enemy lines... or Pakistan (cough)... but this time the country is suspicious and has assets in the air.

FC... A-10A... in Nav mode (1), waypoints don't start from first WP. For example, if I create a route in the ME for an A-10A (playable) and then jump into it (Multiplayer)... the first waypoint is actually the second one I created in the ME, not the start position. I don't think it's just auto-cycling to the next waypoint (e.g. similar to pressing LCtrl + ~).

^^ Great to hear! I'm not saying I'm spectacular at landings, but it was a wee bit tough in 1.2.3 to get the FC3 aircraft down w/out belly sliding... at least with the F-15C.

Yeah, that's a pretty huge advantage... again... only real shot as UH-1 is a.) numbers, b.) first detection. True. My bad... couldn't resist daydreaming. With you on the beer front! As far as "why?", because it's interesting and the sim allows it. Like most, I enjoy purity and accuracy, but hey... it's a sim and a sandbox that lets us try things that have not yet been conceived of. It's just fun at the end of the day. Beer me!

^^ Yeah... I would agree with that assessment. However... if Shark pilot detects you first... poof! Will be fun to see how it works out. Chopper v chopper fights in dissimilar aircraft will be fun to try out! And... I'm assuming a full AI UH-1 will have active door gunners... ? Wondering if they will fire on other aircraft while airborne? You could create a multiplayer mission where you are flight lead and you assign a group of AI UH-1 to "follow" or "escort"... then you would have some of what you are talking about until we get multi-human-seating capability.

Are we thinking the UH-1 door gunners will have AI (bots) when human is piloting? or, are the door gunner positions only available when you manually switch to them, putting chopper into AP mode automatically? Also... will auto-AP modes work in multiplayer missions (assuming yes)? I'm thinking the poor UH-1 will be a pretty outmatched by the Shark... unless undetected :) Some rox, minigun, or door gunner fire would change a Shark pilot's opinion pretty quick methinks. Man... cannot wait for multi-human playable positions so we can fill up a UH-1 and door gunner away. Anyhow... first things first of course. Cheers everyone.

@Ham Sandwich basically nailed it down. :chair: It all just comes down to being respectful and mindful. It's real people behind these avatar names who participate in this community because it is fun... hardcore sims like this are a niche market and 3rd party modules are a means to getting a cool new aircraft rather than making any kind of big $$. They basically make enough to pay for the effort of building out the new module.... maybe. As others have said... the anger and impatience expressed by a way too vocal minority is misdirected. It's okay to say you're tired of waiting... it's okay to be civil and friendly and encouraging... it's okay to ask for an update. But treat the people making this sim better like your friends because that's just who they are... not some faceless conglomerate forcing money out of your wallet. Please don't make the experience of making a 3rd party module such a bad experience that they don't want to make more, or opt to stay out of the forums.

Chill out guys. You get a LOT more info from ED team than you get from any other game dev firm. They are way more present in the forums and share a lot... maybe too much, judging by your posts. It takes time to build quality products and get them out the door. Did you forget the release of 1.2.3? They did a preliminary changelog and then it took another several weeks before release. They are hunting down bugs and killing stuff and no doubt are acutely aware of the problems they are experiencing in patch releases. In the end... any additional release is fun and goodness. We all have access to a wonderful and amazing Sim right now. Go fly it around and enjoy it. Just chill out and quit agitating and threatening the people who are creating this new, awesome stuff for you. It'll be released when it's released. Don't you have anything else to do... like go start your own 3rd party and build stuff... see if you hit all your release targets and get your messaging just right. Sorry for the aggro, just annoyed by the "tudes"... (note: forgive me if I'm misreading / misinterpreting your posts)

This poll is crazy... sooo many pages of posts. I'm sad to see the F/A-18E Hornet dominating the poll because: a.) It is only a single-seater of which we have plenty already and we need to drive development of multi-seat / multi-human playable craft... drive technology and advancement of SIM capability forward with DCS and let a 3rd party handle this module. b.) Correct me if I am wrong here, but Super Hornet will suffer similarly to the most modern fighters because there is a LOT of classified info and we just won't be able to get enough info to make a good / accurate module. I think sticking with F/A-18C (already coming) and those era/generation of craft is the best because there is sufficient data available publicly to make a good simulation.

Godspeed fellow aviator. You will be missed.

I didn't mean to discredit you offhand. I'm glad you voiced your opinion as I understand your position. However, for me and a lot of us, there is a thrill in the teamwork, of making a complex system operate as it was intended. An F-15E is an amazing machine, but severely degraded without the GIB. Trust me, I'm the guy who always wants to fly, but I've got a good friend who loves to be the WSO and help out. The choppers is where the multi-human player in one aircraft is going to really shine. I'm super stoked for it. I think a lot of us are just geeks for systems and doing it all right. I love A2A, but frankly... it gets a little myopic at times and it's nice to do other things. But can you imagine a game in which some guy is controlling in an AWACS Battle Manager position, some guys are in an EA-18G Growler (or maybe EA-6B)... some other guys are in an Su-34, AH-64s and Mi-24s... Tornadoes doing runway denial missions at NOE... and an AC-130 with gunners plying the night skies... we're talking real battle simulations. Makes me itch for the future just thinking of it! LOL! Anyway, glad you like your single-seaters.... we need guys like you to keep those aircraft occupied too! Cheers!

You know (tangent time)... There are things that people try to do over and over... I wish we could make script-lets, modules, what-have-yous that address these things... maybe HOWTOs by game version. For example... there's always something about this topic: Aircraft landing, rearming, refueling, and getting airborne again. There's also always questions on getting AI aircraft to do aerial refueling. I know we have a sticky for "tricks / tips" on the ME, but ... there's gotta be a better, more comprehensive way of a.) solving these problems and b.) getting the solutions out there to the masses. [EDIT]I R genius... as if you read my mind... http://en.wiki.eagle.ru/wiki/Mission_Editor:_Tanker/AAR_(Air-to-Air-Refuelling)[/EDIT]