WirtsLegs

Yeah that's kinda what I figured Just very apparent on the map due to the materials in use for construction

the fire doesn't spread at all in DCS explosions and damage cause fires on objects, thing is there seems to be no consideration for the type of objects or the type of explosion/source of damage as I mention in the original post a conventional bomb is actually better at putting out fires than starting them, whereas the fire in the image was caused by a series of explosions source on this is a bunch of years in the military and lots of experience with explosions fires were started more by tracer rounds than by large explosions (granted even those fires generally only started in dry grass and such) edit: now reading your original reply regarding construction, some would have some wood involved but most of these buildings are single story, no basement, no or VERY little wood (or other flammables) involved before single 500lb impact and immediately after (note black mark impact point bottom left) this is a bit nuts also In cases where a bomb directly hits one of these buildings the flammables are generally dispersed by the blast instead of ignited, fires can start in some instances but, and especially in the case of this type of construction, it is very rare you can find countless videos from Iraq and Afghanistan (and current conflicts) of these bombs detonating and not starting fires

This is maybe a general DCS issue but buildings/scenery on the DCS map that should not burn due to an explosion do so excessively. See attached picture after a shelling zone was used on a small village. These buildings are made from brick and mud, they should not burn at all, further explosions form high explosive actually are better at putting fires out than at starting them, really even in a town full of wood construction where every house has a natural gas line there shouldn't be this much fire null

misaligned is the best word I can come up with for this, maybe better would be wrong 'tile' use? Manifests as these weird sharp lines between two high res sections here is an example

Adding two more instances

Realized I didnt include the actual coords so heres another pic with a google maps share link https://maps.app.goo.gl/dZAXnjU3fHJTrdN97 null

So bit specific but the area in which OP Medusa took place (a particularly significant op during coalition operations in afghanistan) is too rural and missing some key features See below the area as it is in game Then here it is on google maps (bit more zoomed out), note the impact craters and areas where there were buildings but they were destroyed in the operation (some on left side of image but some harder to see on the right) ok now here is the F10 map for the area Finally a map from the actual operation (http://www.operationmedusa.ca/) Would be great to be able to recreate this large and significant operation on the map properly!

those image links don't work for some reason but I am familiar with his mods, not any insurgent infantry to my knowledge? But regarding the new models, those look great but not really what I'm on about, I'm looking for more infantry types not new models for existing infantry. The main asks here are the civilian infantry and emplacements(gun positions etc), neither of which there are any good mods for that im aware of?

With the release of Afghanistan map, the Kiowa, the upcoming chinook and the previously released Apache infantry are becoming MUCH more relevant in DCS. There are countless threads on ground AI and behaviour but thats not what this is about We need more red and neutral infantry and emplacements, instead of just a stuck kneeling RPG soldier and a handful of units with AK-74s Specifically: Civilians: we need civilian assets (there are mods for vehicles but not infantry) as a common challenge in afghanistan thats relevant to these new modules is VID, and discerning enemy fighter from civilian bystander. Being able to have people on rooftops and in fields that the player cant just assume are enemy combatants would add a lot of depth to the game. I would suggest just a few models, male and female that would feel in place for a few of our maps. Enemies: a bit more variety here would be good, give us a mortar team that can pick up and move, a guy with a shovel (think planting IED), and a few variants of the generic rifleman ideally Emplacements: trenches, mounted machine guns, bunkers, etc basically statics that shoot, we need more of them, we need to be able to have a machine-gun or atgm position that is small, somewhat disguised, and able to engage targets, and most importantly isnt an infantry unit that will run in circles the moment the target returns fire Any amount of all of these will be a big help, not asking for new behaviours or AI in this, just a few more models basically.

Confirmed, awesome, thanks flappie!

yeah it kinda feels like a medium level texture is missing, we currently down low either get a high res ground texture for cities, towns, farms etc or the super low res muddy sat image needs a med res to stick wherever high res isn't available for when we are down low that or some form of texture blending to get rid of the sharp lines

Some issues with various waterways usually relating to terrain mesh

This is an issue all over the place, looks really jarring down low, basically the imagery used for the texture has buildings baked into it and appear flat on the terrain even down low This example is at 32deg36'49"N 65deg53'49"E on the edge of Tarinkot

Would just like to bump this again, very-much a needed change to allow for more realistic conditions, and just in general give mission editors more control

Many (seemingly all) buildings on the map are able to take way too much punishment before becoming destroyed some examples here This is the impact of a RN-24 nuclear bomb (yes I know they are just REALLY BIG normal explosions not a modelled nuke but seemed a good way to test this, and only 1 building being destroyed seems wrong? In this case test units i had throughout the city were all destroyed, so the aoe of the explosion seems to still be there, just not enough for most buildings to care Here are 2 pictures showing the results of 4 B-52s dropping a max payload of 500lb bombs As you can see only a handful of buildings are ultimately affected Buildings like some shed and farmhouses have similar resilience to explosions, the end result is that with the payloads players have in WW2 missions they are unlikely to be able to destroy most buildings (which should be doable with a mossie or P-47 payload easily) either deliberately or accidentally. As a best guess I would say it seems like only direct hits with the bomb itself will damage these buildings, the blast does nothing.

Currently the gun cam looks fantastic, but it is hampered by only being able to display to the screen Would love to have an option for it to output to the screenshots folder (kinda how the F-15E does with the TPOD when you hit the record button)

think you missed the point of my post I am fully aware of the remote admin panel via the DCS website as I said in the post, that is not what I am looking for

So currently the dedicated server has the local admin panel which as far as I can tell there is no way to expose remotely, and then we have the admin panel via logging into the DCS website. I would love to have the ability to expose the local panel to the network, main use-case being running multiple DCS servers for a group and would like to be able to pull all of them into a dashboard that I can control access to. Would greatly simplify administration for myself and those I trust with access and be much cleaner that the current approach of sharing VPN configs and RDP credentials etc. A step further if the backend comms of the admin panel could be exposed in such a way that users can write their own apps to talk to it that would be even better

absolutely possible and not a overly difficult edit, check out line 1081 you will see where it checks for the name prefix, can change that to anything However note that current iteration will only function on units that exist when the initialization script is run (so late spawned via script wont work) also due to a DCS bug if the units in question are red or blue (not neutral) then they will ignore the stormtrooper orders if they detect a valid target within range, why I use neutral units for this usually

update on this, script is working fine, found small bug in debug/help functionality but core function is working (have DM'd you additional info). Ensure you use the correct munition names for ImpactInZone to work.

Parts of it are definitely working as I know people using it However I haven't had a chance to evaluate it against the most recent update, will check when I can and update if needed

is this still something thats tracked? the core flak-18s basically don't engage air contacts at all without the KDO unless that contact is diving on them and very close some way to get them to engage would be nice, otherwise no point having the 18s outside the asset pack (event he allies placeholder rangefinder is asset pack which seems wrong?)

Currently the view in the editor is bound by the defined map edge. This it turns out creates a lot of weird behaviour and annoyance when using a wider aspect ratio display, commonly jerking the view around when working at certain zoom levels or near the edge of the map, especially when opening/closing other panels. I would like to request a removal or significant increase of the map pan/zoom limits, would simply suggest that off-map space that would end up being in view as a result at times simply be blank (black, green, white, whatever) space.

Hey there, I love the assets but it seems none of them have any LODs whatsoever, is there any plan to add those? As is clients grind to a halt pretty quickly if you use even a moderate amount of them (especially apparent when building with sandbags, just murders the CPU render thread)

So this may be an unreasonable ask or may be not too bad depending on how maps are stored/loaded/defined Basic idea is inspired by how the lighting at night changes based on the date, where during wartime the city lights will be off outside wartime they are on I would love to see this idea expanded on and applied to airfields, specifically the ALGs built by allied forces post Normandy landings. The basic(if it can be called that) ask would be to have ALGs either be present or not based on the date of the mission, with ALGs that are not present not just be missing on the F10 view but actually be patched out in the terrain (ideally different terrain mesh etc to simulate that area before construction, but even just removal of the statics and make it all grass would be awesome) The bigger ask would be to let us toggle these airfields in the ME independent of mission date, more control for content creators is always better anyway loving the map but this just seemed like such an awesome improvement if possible to really let us simulate the progression of the invasion.