shagrat

Yes, but after you placed a unit...

Was ist denn drin? Historie/Entwicklung, Technik und etwas Eckpunkte der Einsätze, oder mehr "Einsatzberichte von Piloten" und so? Hab bereits die Osprey publications und die Ed Macy und Co. Ist da im neuen Heft des Motorbuchverlags noch neues drin?

I fixed the issue with the vehicles in the Mission Editor and gave the texture some love... Thanks to Wrench for the initial mod and Bog9y for the concept. Still not perfect, no LODs, does need a mostly flat area etc. but good enough for hover practice and spicing up some airports... padMark.zip

Thank you so much for this! The pickup trucks are brilliant! Over a decade overdue...

Yeah, but it looks very "distinguishable" with the tire on top... But yep, should be good enough. I really hope ED does the same with the Technical shown in Wags AH-64 video.

Just, put a couple tires to mark the "pad" and place the "invisible FARP" object in-between. Spawning objects, on top of other objects, can be "interesting" sometimes, but spawning Helos on the ground works fine and with the "invisible FARP" we can create quite convincing FARPs, Expeditionary airfields and improvised staging areas...

Yeah, german ex-army here, I am woefully aware how much improvement the smoke screen needs. On the other hand I know more smoke (particle effects) = performance hit, so if for example a dozen tanks get under attack and defended with a smokescreen we may end up with single digit FPS. With the VR guys already, constantly whining about FPS, it is a tough decision I guess. In theory, you could script "realistic" smokescreens with white smoke markers... but with the above performance penalties. Smoke Generators (adding stuff into the engine) is mostly used when a Tank reverses out of a position to cover the retreat, rarely to lay a screen in front of advancing troops, but it still is a thing in the modern MBTs.

Could you do one(!) of these as a civilian, unarmed(!) vehicle, may be with liveries (white, tan, desert, colors)? If we have just ONE model, that comes as armed vs unarmed, we could enforce Visual Identification and subsequently Rules Of Engagement!

They disperse away from the road, which is quite ok especially in urban areas. Fleeing the scene (rout) is something the mission creator needs to do based on conditions or via script and honestly I am happy the AI does not flee from combat unpredictable and in a random direction, as it would make reliable results in missions and campaigns even more difficult. That stuff is something for the dynamic campaign feature, we hopefully see one day, together with logistics, morale and tear and wear... but for now the improvements in wayfinding, critical hit damage modeling and granular control a welcome advance for ground forces. I'd rather see more unarmed vehicles, civilians or specifically the Technicals as an unarmed white 4x4 to model ROE and prevention of collateral damage. P.S. ...and APC/IFV/Tanks armed with smoke grenades DO pop smoke, but that effect is indeed too short and not very convincing.

Multi-Crew manning stations should depend on the setting "solo flight" on the special tab for the individual aircraft in the Mission Editor. When solo flight is checked, it should appear as a single slot and you should be able to switch seats. The exception currently being the F-14 Tomcat from Heatblur... The Huey seems to be bugged, indeed.

Need to set alarm state green or they will fight and stand. You can set it to auto or red when they reached their fallback line

Did I miss the new link? Can't find it.

Ah, so you talked to whom at ED, that told you that? Or are you simply making assumptions? Better statementT would be "To me it seems like..." instead of absolutes that are pulled from thin air? To me it seems, they were hoping to go Early Access in December, when they said "we hope", but encountered some issues tied into the Flight model, Autopilot, AI stuff, that would make it not very enjoyable. So after the F-16 EA, that got them a whole lot of negative Feedback, they made the reasonable decision, to fix it to a point, where we can enjoy it, albeit with a baseline of functionality. Though of course I would have hoped(!) for an EA release in early December, so I can enjoy it over the holidays, like everyone else, but I can accept the fact, it isn't ready, yet. So I will wait and enjoy other modules, while the make the Apache Longbow ready... Just my personal 2 cents.

...or with any router, switch or MPLS-line in-between... Because, if it was the master server it should have affected everyone that connects to the master server, SP as well as MP from any country. And btw I am pretty sure it is not just "one single master server", but a Multi-Region cloud based virtual cluster with the normal availability measures in place, because it would not work reliable in the first place, if all the guys from Australia, Chile or the US needed to reach a single server in a Moscow Data-Center... Just saying.

It's basically what the error message tells you: the connection(!) timed out, as in anywhere between your PC and the server, or on the way between the server and your PC the Internet did not forward the packages in a timely manner and the application has waited quite a while, but the connection did not recover... The thing is "connection" is way more than just your internet access, or your provider's network. It can have a lot of different reasons why. Though the world made good progress in upgrading the infrastructure overall, sometimes there still are days it struggles, e.g. black Friday/week/cyber Monday and a gazillion shoppers flooding the network. An analogy would be blaming your car, or your carport, for the traffic jam your stuck in.

Ja, stimmt. Die Mirage. Ich war beim Harrier. Wobei "Den Trigger nochmal zuweisen" tatsächlich super aufwändig ist. Wenn ich mich Recht erinnere, war es nicht der Community-Druck, der Razbam dazu bewegt hat die Harrier auf die moderne Ausstattung upzudaten und TPOD Gen. 4, GBU-45, APKWS etc. zusätzlich zu machen, sondern die Tatsache, dass es mittlerweile Doku, und Zugriff auf SMEs gibt... Sie hätten auch die "alte" Version, ohne den zusätzlichen Aufwand fertigmachen können und gut ist. Klar hat Razbam Anfangs ziemlich lange gebraucht und diverse Anläufe gebraucht ihre Entwicklungsprozesse für DCS auf Reihe zu kriegen, aber man vergisst gerne, dass zwischendurch die Platform DCS zweimal heftige Veränderungen erfahren hat (2.0 und 2.5, dann 2.7 nochmal Teile der Engine) und auch die kleinen Änderungen durch ED bedeuten, dass alle 3rd Party ihre Module erneut anfassen, updaten und erneut testen und fixen müssen, auch was z.T. bereits fertig war. Ich finde es gut, dass trotzdem nicht "nur das Nötigste" gemacht wird und jedes neue Feature in der Engine genutzt wird sich zu verbessern. Das gilt selbstverständlich für alle Teams, nicht nur für RB. Aber nach dem schwierigen Start mit der Mirage und der AV-8B, hat sich Razbam ziemlich gut eingespielt und ich mag das Ergebnis halt. Also, erlaube ich mir sie dafür auch zu loben, so wie ich früher die Bugs aufgezeigt und auch kritisiert habe, was schief gelaufen ist.

Lass mich raten? Im Steam Shop gesehen? Das wurde schon mehrfach gesagt, dass Steam es nicht zulässt "in Q4" oder "im Januar" etc. einzutragen. Es muss wohl zwingend ein "Datum" in die Maske eingetragen werden und ED hat schon häufiger darauf hingewiesen, dass dieses "Datum" eine grobe Schätzung ist und kein definitives Release Date. P.S. ...ich hatte auch gehofft, sie packen es Anfang Dezember und ich kann die Feiertage schon loslegen, aber so flieg ich wohl noch etwas mehr Harrier oder mal ernsthaft die Mi-24.

Du meinst "neue Features und Waffensysteme, die neue Bedienungen hinzufügen?". Die einzige Änderung bestehender Belegungen an die ich mich in letzter Zeit erinnern kann, war der "fix" für die Beleuchtung und OSB-Buttons der MPCDs, das war tatsächlich nervig, weil man es neu belegen musste. Der Litening Pod Gen. 4, hat einige Änderungen in der Bedienung gebracht, allerdings hat der das auch IRL getan und der "alte TPOD" wurde tatsächlich auch in der echten AV-8B anders bedient, als der neuere Litening Gen. 4, den Razbam zusammen mit den APKWS, GBU-54 und LMAV E2 jetzt zusätzlich gemacht hat, um die Harrier up-to-date zu bringen. Das war kein "Fehler" im Development, sondern ein ziemlich umfangreiches Upgrade, ohne zusätzliche Kosten. Ich bin Razbam da sehr dankbar für.

Jupp.

Basically it would be a good idea to use "JointCoalition.BLUE" and "Joint coalition.RED" as "Countries", by default. This way, you can create opponents that have access to the same equipment and all liveries. The countries like USA/Russia/Insurgents usually limits the assets available, but often makes it unnecessarily hard to, if you need a bit of variety, or specific assets, say ISIL fighters with access to a T-72 or a captured Iraqi Humvees etc.

What is interesting is the Callsign + No. with 34 and(!) dash 1/2 for the aircraft. I mostly read it as the first number after the Callsign as the flight and the second already identifying the position. So "Apache 34" 'should' be Apache 3 flights second elements wingman? Are there situations where you have 27 or even 34 flights with the callsign Apache scheduled or is that 27/ 34 from the aircraft ID and the individual calllsign of the aircraft?

Yep, but air force usually organizes flights under the same callsign and "No." so a "Mako 3" flight consists of "Mako 3-1 and Mako3-2 (-3, -4)" and "Mako 4" would be another F-16 flight. It seems that numbering logic for the callsign does not translate 100% to the Army Air Corps? I noticed the British WAH-64 squadrons start counting with 0 so you happen to have "Dragon 0-1" and "Dragon 0-2" as callsigns, but then it's not the Army anyway, but apart from that they follow the Callsign FlightNo.-Position scheme.

Nowadays you can add the client slots to flight (group), so if there is no copy protection or trigger/script events that use the unit/player, but triggers are evaluated per the group and zones for "all in zone" not too tight, it is not too hard. With the Dual cockpit multiplayer we really could use an upgrade to the DLC protection that would basically check,if you have a license before joining such a mission on a server/hosted game from a buddy. I love the idea of flying some of the campaigns with a buddy... or a flight of human controlled client aircraft.

You can't with a DLC campaign, as the copy protection prevents that. The included campaigns and missions are different.

That's how it's done in the Air Force... As someone mentioned above, the Army Air Corps is a bit different. I found the "Dragon 34 dash -1" bit very interesting, as I've never heard, read this before.