sirrah

Ah ok Well, yes you can (they obviously won't move though, as they're static)

Not sure if I understand what you're asking, but you can just place deck crew as static (personnel) object anywhere you want on the ground. You don't have to link them (you only use the "link to" option if you place them on a moving carrier) If you share your mission here, maybe we can have a look at what might be wrong.

Sorry if I came off as rude, but I was honestly just curious if anyone found any footage of the 1st person pilot body yet. I didn't want to start yet another "pilot body feature is useless" discussion. Unfortunately, as most (if not all) YT content creators don't use VR, they tend to have it switched off. Early sneak peaks looked astonishing, so I'm really curious as to how it evolved since.

Ok, thank you for letting us know.. For those of us that do fly in VR and like the cramped feeling you experience when sitting in a real fighter cockpit, the pilot body is a great addition to immersion. Really hope the 1st person pilot body is included on EA release (I think I read somewhere it will be)

Here's another YT user video Anyone seen any YT footage yet from the 1st person (VR) pilot body? (Perhaps not included in the current version shared with the YT content creators) I really wonder if Razbam manages to equal, or even exceed the pilot body quality of their AV8B module.

As @cfrag has mentioned. Player controlled aircraft only. As you might imagine, AI pathing would be a problem. For AI helicopters (and iirc Harrier) take off from ground is an option, but obviously they then simple take off vertically.

Mate, with respect, but are you just stubborn or do you really not read other people's arguments? As I tried to explain to you before, we're not just talking about one $14 addon. If we were, yes, it would be a non-discussion. If all these "missing" assets are added by means of asset packs like the WWII pack we have now, that would call for many MANY asset packs, not just one pack containing everything. You keep telling people here to get a job, but this discussion isn't about money. Most if not all people here know development costs money and nobody is asking anything for free. The OP wished for more asset packs. Some people here (including myself) wonder if more asset packs would be the best solution. As I mentioned before, personally I'd gladly pay more for modules and wouldn't mind if ED had less (or no) sales, if that would mean they could work on adding more assets. Or just make maps more expensive and use the extra income to include map and map era specific assets Razbam somehow managed to include a few new assets with their SA map (which they even made available free even to those that didn't buy SA)

I know it does I'm merely proposing an option, to be able to just sit back in the WSO or pilot seat, admire the view and have a cold beer while your AI crew member hooks up with the tanker. This would also be ideal for those that would like to experience AAR, but lack the skills and/or don't have time to learn.

It's not about what I (or you) buy... We're talking about the MP part of DCS getting even further scattered when multiple asset packs are added. So, to many, me included, asset packs are not the solution. What is? I don't know. But luckily I'm not the one that should provide this solution. I get paid for other stuff Also, nobody here is saying everything should be free (if you read more carefully what other people write before drawing conclusions, you'd see that). @Dragon 1-1; I have to agree, if it really has to be "asset packs", something like "10 year era-packs" would probably suit best. Although that would still result in a lot of packs that would have to contain units that can be used on all maps (I can see the complaints already about missing units)

You're missing a major point here: We're not talking about one asset pack for $29 (one asset pack for this price would never cover the costs to develop all the additional assets that are "needed"). We're talking about multiple asset packs. Maybe one for air units, one for maritime, one for ground units, one for civil units, one for static units, etc. Or packs per era, or map related. Whatever the asset pack approach would be, it would never all fit in one single $29 pack.

A lot of Syria heli platforms haven't had correct collision models since release (this probably being one of them). Unfortunately, Syria map hasn't been touched/fixed by Ugra for a very VERY long time. Considering the complete lack of any form of response to user feedback and bug reports by Ugra and/or ED (ahum... kneeboard...), I suppose by now the Syria map can be considered abandoned. Luckily most of the map is very nice. Just a pity, as it could have been brilliant.

Packs like this cause issues on the already "struggling" MP side of DCS. Servers would have to choose; Use asset packs and many won't be able to join. Don't use packs and run a mediocre mission. Either way, it would even further scatter the already thin populated servers. Personally, I much rather pay more for modules (or maybe there should be less/no sales), than seeing more asset packs. But it is a complicated matter. Higher module prices will scare off newcomers.

I understand your wish (you're not the first one asking for this), but fwiw; irl this apparently is (almost) never done. I asked this particular question to Growler Jams on one of his YT videos (awesome channel btw) and iirc his answer was, he had never experienced such a call in his entire career (Not saying it shouldn't be an option in DCS, just sharing info )

So, because you and maybe a few others have an "issue" with disk space, ED should "fix" that for you? Sure, the liveries file size for some modules might be getting out of hand a bit and could maybe use some new rules/restrictions from ED, but you make it sound like something is broken.. it's not.

I don't quite follow you I think. I can imagine playing/flying pretty much entire missions in SP mode from the WSO seat (apart from maybe the startup/take off and landing part). If there was an option to have >F-15E<pilotAI (did Razbam share a name yet?) hook up with the tanker while you are in the back seat, why should you switch to the pilot seat? As said, although I like doing AAR myself, I can also imagine chilling a moment in the backseat in VR, just admiring the view while AI pilot is doing AAR.

Fwiw, I'm just gonna leave this here: Quote from @NineLine Link to original post

You know what, let me make you happy: ED is doing all this at the same time! By the way: ED hasn't released any new modules in over 6 months. iirc the Apache was their last module. (Don't mix up 3rd party devs with ED and you can't expect 3rd party devs to work on DCS core features.

Ok, thanks yet again for your help For now, I've set all units to 100W and I'm gonna just try and see how that works out for my mission. But , reading your experience, I'll probably end up placing a few aircraft in orbit at high altitude.

Wait what? These transmissions are only heard when in LOS of the transmitting unit? Oh bummer.. then I'll have to redo all (~30) of the transmissions I just added to my mission Do you know if transmissions are also blocked by scenery, or only by terrain?

What power should I set, in order to make transmissions audible throughout the entire map (Syria)? Any ideas? 100W? More?

I think I found my issue The AI aircraft has two waypoint actions ("Bombing" and "Immortal") and I think I had the priority wrong. I had Bombing as 1st action and Immortal as 2nd. So probably the Immortal action would activate after the Bombing action. Will try again (this sequence takes place ±1 hour into the mission). Gotta love ME testing

That was exactly my thought about the immortal feature. I'll do a triple check tomorrow (already did a double check today ), before creating a bug report

While testing one of my new missions, I noticed that one of the AI aircraft that I had set to immortal, somehow still got damaged by enemy AAA. It was smoking and the damage model clearly indicated it took several hits. After a while, the AI pilot bailed out, the aircraft lost altitude and then just kept bouncing on and off the ground till eternity (so the "immortal" action was working ) I actually just wanted the AI aircraft to attract AAA fire and Manpads (for visual effects), but I don't want it to get damaged, nor do I want it to take evasive action (as I want it to finish his attack run first). I expected setting him to be immortal would do the trick. So, is it correct that immortal (AI) units can still get damaged? Or did I stumble upon a bug here?

Ahh thanks, good to know! I would have used that indeed. This saves me more troubleshooting

Couldn't let it go, so I made two simple missions, to test this. (one for Caucasus and one for Syria, to rule out map related issues) F/A-18C hot start on ramp with COM1 set to 264.7 and COM2 set to 264 Placed two ground units and have them transmit/play a sound file. One on 264.7 (triggered after 15secs) and one on 264 (triggered after 20secs) Strangely enough, on both my test missions, I was able hear both sound files... So, that got me thinking... why on earth does it work now and not on the mission I was working on in my OP?! Then I remembered, for these test missions, I placed new units. In my previous mission, I copy/pasted the transmitting unit. And that's where things appear to go sideways. So, yes, transmitting a sound file from a ground unit does work (also for decimal frequencies), but do not copy paste that unit when you want to create a new transmitting ground unit. Add a new unit by clicking the ground unit icon on the left of the screen.