Kocrachon

I've also tried to do it with the Embark to transport and with the Embarking task, both at Waypoint 0 and start "From Start" and they are still starting outside the aircraft.

Having a hard time finding this on the forums. I currently have a CH-47 Client as a hard start on a helipad. I go to the trigger, I set Cargo Transportation (Internal) and I have a group of infantry near by, and I can't select them from the Group drop down. So it leaves me wondering, how do I start the mission with Infantry pre-loaded into cargo?

The easiest method my old squad used was to take MIST scripting framework. It has a lot of built in functions already for calling all units and getting the lat/long. You then spit that all out as LUA arrays, and the DCS has a lua2json function to covert that to more practical stuff to work with: https://wiki.hoggitworld.com/view/Mission_Scripting_Tools_Documentation (For example, if you want to get all aircraft only) https://wiki.hoggitworld.com/view/MIST_makeUnitTable lua conversion https://wiki.hoggitworld.com/view/DCS_func_lua2json Have your script refresh every X often and a script to upload the data to your webserver or hosting server that the JSON is read from.

The problem will be that over time the aircraft will start to break an will no longer get fixes/patches an will eventually be too broken to fly. Thats if ED doesn't do what they did with the Hawk and just remove it from the game entirely.

Yes I get the limited to K, but I meant the Actual longbow Radair/Airdome. Its an inventory item that players can have the Aircrew add. So they dont have Longbow missiles, but it still gives them access to the Radar to find targets, and slew the TADS to those radar detected items. Just wasn't sure if it made sense to also remove those since the Army did not get that attachment until 1997, and they do give a massive situational awareness advantage to the Apaches, even if they dont have the Longbow missiles.

Wasn't sure if this was the right place to bring this up, but.. I noticed that the Apaches, despite not having Longbow missiles, had inventory options to bring the Longbow radar. While I know it may seem pointless to bring the radar without the missiles, with the ability for the Pilot/CPG to slew the TADS over to radar spots, as well as having radar contacts on the HMD, it seems to make sense to remove Longbow radars from the Apaches. Not sure of the situation on all the servers, but I was on one of the PG missions and was noticing that. Also, will there be more Kiowas added in the future slot wise? I don't want to throw the word balance or anything around, but the amount of Hinds with R-60s outweighs some of what the Bluefor gets, especially since the Apaches are limited to only inner pylon Laser Hellfires. I know the Gazelle L is there but... the Kiowa is cooler... I get the overall limit but just wondering.

I currently have a bunch of T-72s set up in a mission to Game Master Only, but I also have no Game Master slot. I am basically trying to make it so that there is a set of tanks that players cannot command/control. Some tanks can be, some cant. I assumed with these settings, the tanks could not be commanded by players. But I am running into issues of players commanding the vehicles towards enemy positions/spawns. I want to avoid removing Pilot can control vehicles, as well as avoid hiding everything, but its looking like I might not have a choice. Is this the intended behavior? And I have these settings set as so:

I'm signing up for for F-14 Rio for F99th-Pyromaniac

So I had this issue also. What exactly is that watch for? The Hint it gives doesn't really tell me what its doing other than removing the F-14...

So, just some minor opinions. The player numbers in Round 2 sort of tipped after a bunch of BlueFor didn't come back after reset. Bluefor needed to do CAP and Strike, while having nearly the same numbers as red who just needed CAP and had more SAMs. I think the challenge of the sudden change to older Era plus the change in player balance sort of tipped the match very one sided. If it were a CAP vs CAP mission with equal sams, that would be one thing, but it basically turned into a furball of A2A on the border with Red more heavily defended at both high and low altitude. I think if Red was forced to stagger more, if a slight reduction in SAMs was partially needed to compensate for the lack of smart munitions and "balanced teams". With the current setup Blue had not real chance to do A2G missions.

Here is a bunch of logs from 2 different servers experiencing this issue. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bRVGtYnb-GaPxzeafOxLIV125PWWwk7a/view?usp=sharing

Just one last question, is this going to impact Russian equipment at all? IE, will they be limited to R/T or will they get ER/ET and 77s as well? Not a complaint, just curious.

Theres no point in making a cheat mode to make it easier. The issue is not "Its too hard". The issue is, you need to find the technique that works for you. At the end of the day, AAR is just formation flying. And formation flying comes down 90% to speed control. Your issue is you are likely making too large of adjustments either in throttle or in stick. These are basic flying principals. It took me a few years to AAR but I found out the one key thing that made a huge difference for me. Sensitivity Curves. Tweaking throttle and stick curves so that your large movements on the stick are compensated for helps prevent you from over correcting. Also remember, you are trying to make the identical speed of the tanker. So don't come in too hot (although the drogue is a bit more forgivable for that, that the boom). Here is what worked for me, but might not be "Realistic" Before you even connect, trying to fly in formation with the tanker, find out what its speed is, so that way when you connect, you can pay attention to your HUD speed and try to stay on top of it, giving and reducing little bits at a time to hold that speed. Once you are connected, its about tiny tiny adjustments to keep it balanced. So tl;dr, set sensitivity curves, small adjustments, and fly in formation with the tanker before connecting. This also gives me a bit of impression that you need to look more into flight dynamics. A centerline bag on an F-18 gives you enough fuel to do a round trip on most missions if you are not doing CAP. You need to look at the FPAS page, look at your fuel consumption. The F-18 has longer legs than you realize, as long as you are flying for optimized fuel performance. Thats typically in the 25k-35k, mach .75-.8 speed range. The thing will sip gas if you follow FPAS recommendation, able to make a 700nm trip. You also need to not bring heavy, unrealistic loadouts. If you are bringing 8 JSOWs, yeah, you are not gonna get far, thats why they don't do that in real life, its terrible aerodynamics. Bring realistic loadouts and use FPAS to make sure you are using efficient fuel and you can coast far. In real life its more fuel efficient to bring 2 F-18s with 4 JSOWS each vs 1 F-18 with 8 JSOWs because the amount of drag is extreme and actually severely limits fuel efficeny. Also, afterburner should be limited. Even when climbing to altitude, you should not be burning. Do not use afterburner for basic flight after a carrier take off.

I am trying to make a switched condition trigger that is "repeatable". Repeatable in the sense of, instead of having 1 trigger for each group that dies, I want 1 trigger that increases a flags value by 1 each time one of the "Or" is completed. Attached is an example of that triggered. It is a switched condition type. But it only triggers when one of the OR statements is completed, one the next ones are completed, it doesn't trigger. Is there a way to make this work and not need to create a trigger for each group/unit dead combo I have? EDIT: Just realized that a Switch is not what I thought it was. Once it goes True, thats it, id have to some how make it false again.

Not everyone is making missions specifically related to the current events, so giving what Syria actually operates is pretty much a realistic expectation I feel like. Even if you do, the lack of Mi-8s to replicate barrel bombs could also be an argument for adding Mi-8 skins in itself.

So, Syria is the new map but the lack of units that are in game with Syria skins are a bit disappointing for mission making. We only get the MIG-29A, where as the MIG-29M or T would be a better option for Syria. We do not have Mi-24s but we have Ka-50s.. We lack Mi-8s (They have Mi-17s but basically the same thing) I feel like we need some new skins and vehicles added to Syria for some of this new stuff. Would rather have a Syria Mi-8 flying around than a Russian one for missions. I know its a minor detail, but still ads to some of the gameplay.

Is there any documentation on how to set up a repo? The Github repo and the Website for it are both down.

Hey All, My squadron has a few skin makers, and we are trying to figure out a way to maybe host some sort of "skin repo" that has tool that auto syncs everyones skins to the latest version. I've thought about google drive and what not, but those can be a bit complicated to set up and not accidentally delete your original folder. I read of JGSME but wasn't sure if this did it perfectly setup, as it sees like it may not handle skins as well, but I am not sure. I have a Linux and a Windows server I can host on, so I am pretty open to options. Mainly, I wan't something that I can "add" a new skin to a specific aircraft, and users of the software automatically get it added to the appropriate aircraft folder

Its a 3rd party tool that works using 3rd party options and 3rd party connectivity. By building a new integrated system, you will improve performance. You can't just copy and paste the code. RIght now it runs as an external client, thats how all of the code is written. Having a built in client will require a lot of different coding. ANd most of us that use SRS would much prefer to use an integrated option. As a server owner, I -HATE- having to update the SRS server client at random times because of when he decided to drop a patch. If its integrated in the game, its always patched when my game is also patched. Its one less thing I need to separately patch and manage. Even the maker of SRS himself has said he prefers the idea of ED making their own VOIP system. So if the maker thinks its the better option, than its likely the better option.

Perfect, thank you.

Dedicated server is using login, we run 3 servers sharing one user. We want to change to using a different user per server based on some feedback with servers disappearing from the list. I can't for the life of me figure out how to sign out when auto login is turned on.

F99th-Kocrachon F-5E-3 Please and thank you also.

S_EVENT_REFUELING_STOP and S_EVENT_REFUELING consider the unit receiving fuel as the initiator, but it would be nice if we could also get the aircraft that is refueling them. With missions where you can have more than one tanker, it would be super great to create special events pending on which tanker the aircraft decided to use.

Hey all, I am running a MP server and trying to run a script that outputs everything from the getAvailableSlots() command. However, it keeps returning Nil no matter what I feed in. Example Code server_mission_name = DCS.getMissionName() available_slots = DCS.getAvailableSlots(1) available_slots_json = net.lua2json(available_slots) available_slots2 = DCS.getAvailableSlots(2) available_slots_json2 = net.lua2json(available_slots2) server_full_file:write("Mission Name\n" .. server_mission_name .."\n") server_full_file:write("Slot Info\n" .. available_slots_json .."\n") server_full_file:write("Slot Info\n" .. available_slots_json2 .."\n") When I don't conver the lua2json, I still just get a blank {} table. Where as when I convert them to LUA json, I get a "nil" string. So not sure what I am doing wrong with this command. I have tried feeding the coalition as integers, strings, and even empty. I get no results from my MP server. But I get the mission name just fine. This runs after a player has selected a slot, so it should providing accurate data. EDIT: Solved, it wanted red or blue as input, different from what most of the mission scripts want.

One thing I changed that -may- seemed to have fixed it was changing the WebUI of one of the servers. Even though both were running on two different boxes, they both were using the default 8088 for the WebUI. I changed one to 8087 and one for 8088 and now both of the conflicting servers are showing up.