rob10

Skip the screenshot and save the track file when you close the mission (it's an option on the bottom of the debrief screen -- ideally make it as short as possible) and post it. That will allow people to actually reproduce what you're doing rather than one specific point in time on your screen.

If I have my terminology correct (which I won't guarantee ) one is primarily concerned with air targets, the other with ground targets. If I'm wrong, someone will no doubt correct me shortly

The unfortunate reality is that DCS is niche market of a niche market. It just doesn't have the numbers of users that a FPS type game has, which is where multiple game releases happen. It also has a lot more complexity in what its doing. Most of this type of game are actually a "side hustle" of the actual military side of the business (DCS and a certain tank simulator are good examples) or we likely wouldn't have them at all. I'm actually amazed we get what we do for the price do considering the numbers. The good news is that BIG features tend to get baked in the background with little fanfare or information to spring (maybe not quite) fully formed out of the blue some day. MT was a great example. There were a vocal number of people who were convinced ED had abandoned it, it was never coming etc, then suddenly it was announced as coming in the next update. Sure somethings go by the wayside (i.e. the mid-level FC replacement), but mostly stuff they have talked about eventually does get done.

Since it would likely be the AI team working on this, all kinds of AI enemy (and even wingman) behaviours. As razo+r said, it's also not as easy as just moving someone from fixing a radar to this. Those would take two completely different skillsets and the radar guy might decide to move on if you suddenly want them to make AI (assuming it wouldn't take them an extended period go get up to speed on doing that). Coming from years of MSFS before DCS and having done BMS I can fully appreciate the value of a better ATC. I'd love to have it. But it's 10 min or less at the start and end of the mission. For SP I miss it, for MP it would be a challenge to work around it, those are the reasons why it's not my highest priority. Better AIC or GCI I could get more excited about, but I don't really lump them in with ATC

It's still got an active Discord. I can't imagine there's a lot to say as you get close to the end and are finishing/polishing things. And they've already said they have an internal release target date set, so I'd be shocked if we don't see it before spring.

ATC complete re-write is a long term project that is being worked on as previously stated by ED. What priority level it has/how far along it is is unknown. Lots of people would like to see it improved, but there are lots of people who would also argue there are a lot of higher priority items.

Wow, just wow. How do you know more people = done faster? If they're optimizing objects that are used all across the map there are only a limited number of people that can work on any given thing without being in each others way. If it's hand placing specific objects in specific places on the map maybe there is an advantage to more people, but I doubt there's a lot of that going on currently. Same with a "... rather large application codebase...". There are likely lots of different semi-independent systems within that application. There probably aren't that many in a DCS map.

Ya totally forgot visible before activation option as mentioned by @Weta43. That's your simple option for a late activatable unit.

Depending what it is, you may be able to make it uncontrolled or else set it in the Advanced Waypoint Actions as HOLD with a trigger to stop that condition in that WP action for when you're as close as you want. Note that you want that trigger in the actual advanced waypoint, not as a regular trigger (or set a flag in the regular triggers and use it in the advanced waypoints STOP CONDITION).

1st thing I'd try is removing your mods (I see at least the Bronco).

Just realize that that blurb in the changelog is strictly referring to changes how the calculations are done, not any actual change to what the actual basis of the calculations themselves are, so I don't think you can expect to see any change in AI seeing through things based on those changes. The next sentence after what you highlight explicitly says the change was moving parts of the calculations to a different thread.

That's likely a case of your anti-virus getting too horny and blocking or interfering with it. Recently a transport.dll started causing some people issues and excluding DCS from AV solved it.

Are the BTR's an uncontrolled unit rather than a static? If so, this is a known and reported bug (and from the description it sounds like this bug).

That is incorrect. I just used it the other night and it's still there. It opens to white by default, but there is a keybind to change it to green.

Not sure IMHO that this is an EA issue. I see this more as an issue that the new map making tech ED is trying to use (and I get why they've moved that way; being able to create bigger maps with less work/$ is a good goal) is currently not up to the task. I hope the upcoming update to Afghanistan proves me wrong on that, but I'm currently in the camp of just double the price of maps and go back to the old production methods unless massive improvements to the new system is possible. That's why I'm holding off on Iraq when in past I'd have pre-ordered without thinking.

Yes, by AIRCRAFT TYPE. So if I have a flight of F-18's on CAP and a different flight of F-18's on SEAD I can't have a different kneeboard each that only shows up for each -- i.e. the CAP kneeboard only for the CAP flight and SEAD kneeboard only for the SEAD flight. Currently only option is for both flights to have both CAP and SEAD kneeboards.

The docs are 100+ pages long all in one file. There is only one scripted mission (the file in your folder), whatever happens after that is based on what happens in each successive mission. If you read the 1st few pages of the docs it will explain this.

This is purely a guess since it's the same .dll all the time: double check that your anti-virus isn't quarantining or removing that file. EDIT: appears that was a recently changed file (Oct 2) so could be either AV flagging it or something messed up in it.

You imply this is the case for EVERYONE. It's not. It may be "NOT FULLY USABLE" for YOU, but your posts imply that's the case for everyone which isn't the case. It's "fully usable" for me. Please note that I'm not saying (nor do I think) that you don't have a problem and I have no doubt that it's not fully usable for you. I just have an issue when people presume their issue affects ALL users. The version before this was equally "NOT FULLY USABLE" for a different subset of users which is why ED is still working on the system.

I'm guessing you already figured this out, but to save you pulling out hair in case you didn't think of it, make sure you set your parking brake after you move out and leave it on while you're aligning. Won't align without it set.

A big part of the problem is that the maps may be built on different technologies (depending which maps, but definitely something like Iraq and Syria), so it's not as simple as "allowing" joining of the maps. In order to allow joining would likely require a complete re-write of (presumably the older) map. Not going to happen.

For starters I'd set your pagefile to a static 32GB. With 32GB and your current 5ish GB pagefile your likely running out of memory.

Seriously, he has you blocked. I know you like to get a rise out of him, but responding to him every time is just cluttering the thread up.

Which is a whole different kettle of fish, but 1st draft of Afghanistan using whatever the new methods are IMO flopped badly enough that I'm holding off on Iraq until I see if they can make it actually look acceptable to me. And I'm not a helo driver complaining about down low. Kola managed to improve to a decent place, so I have hope, but I feel burned enough by Afghanistan that I'll hold off this time.

I agree with MAXsenna's comments. While you might not have people tripping over each other with map development (especially things like creating different airports), but there is going to be a sweet spot maximum after which the returns of adding more are meaningless. Assuming ED has enough people to hit that and have people left over, it makes sense to have multiple maps on the go. My guess is that this is different to plane development where the optimum maximum number before people get in each others way is likely lower, but also I'd guess that the map making skills required are a lot more "generic" so it's probably a lot easier to hire a bigger pool of people on that side than say for flight model.