Grimes

Its there, just worded differently. Since I wrote the wiki I probably am not the best judge of which is more clear.

That isn't a bug, its what those settings allow AI to do. When its on Priority Designated the AI will only do their assigned task. Unless for self defense at close ranges. Both Weapon Free and Priority Designated allow the AI to go "off mission" to attack valid targets. From: https://wiki.hoggitworld.com/view/DCS_option_roe

IIRC this was fixed. I found my local copy of the mission posted above with the F-4E and it worked as expected. If there is a different situation then I need something showing it to test.

It doesn't have any SAM onboard. Just 40,036 rounds of 30mm, and 180 rounds 76mm, and. 4 KH-41. https://github.com/mrSkortch/DCS-miscScripts/blob/master/ObjectDB/Ships/MOLNIYA.lua

Think of it as a scale with how seriously one might take the PvP experience that was purposefully labeled to kick up rather than down. More often than not the suggestions in the name of balance, forcing longer rearm/repair times, forcing no auto-start, and the like tend to come from one end of the scale. I'm simply stating that it would be a good idea if we ever got a UI update to have granularity of choice in what is displayed. Maybe on one end it displays "5x F-16C, 2x F-14B (max players 30)" while at the other end it might display raw numbers similar to an FPS like 7/30.

I think the "current" setup is a bit of a misnomer because it is more or less the same general idea of how its functioned since LOMAC. The spreadsheet design we see today listing every slot has been around since Black Shark. I don't think it has scaled particularly well over the years from typically small player count co-op servers of two aircraft types before DCS World to PvP with hundreds of aircraft slots. If you want 4 Gazelles of each type at a base that means 16 client aircraft, which are multicrew so its really 32 lines. If your mission has multiple bases for them to spawn at or has progression involved then it can explode the list just for versions of an aircraft. IMO there are two solutions. One is the UI presentation and the other is the UI coupled with a more drastic overhaul of how slots exist. The former would involve showing basic statistics for a given team listing the aircraft types available, number of players, and number of a given type available. Ideally it exists as a mission setting because the format of information can be different for co-op missions vs PvP vs neckbeard PvP. Then you are given a map view of bases that you can click on to select an aircraft type. Could have a filter to highlight ones with available aircraft you want to fly so you aren't searching base by base to find what you want. A problem point is all of the methods that the community has created for blocking slots due to a base being unavailable and slots being exclusive to squad members or patreons. So maybe in the end the user is still given a spreadsheet limited to that base and those aircraft to make their final selection. The other thought would require a redesign of how clients are placed and triggers work. Relying on the warehouse system or just a set value of number of spawns available at a base and a client simply spawns into an aircraft that wasn't placed in the editor. Which is obviously a problem if you want to use "unit in zone" trigger to do something. In general yes I do believe the whole UI/UX between a player joining a server and spawning needs a dire overhaul.

RIght Alt + Y changes the coordinates in the editor and F10 map view. It has 3 types of lat/lon, MGRS, and in game XYZ.

Reported thanks.

It is a wiki which enables anyone to fix typos or omissions on articles. I haven't experimented much with the built in troop transport functionality when CTLD or just spawning groups works well enough on its own. Tested it briefly when it was added sort of thing. I think they might have moved the disembarking task to the transporter from the group being transported at somepoint though. Or maybe it was mixed up from the start. I would have to test both the triggered actions and the scripting functionality of it.

Never? Uncontrolled has been in the game for quite a while. Better part of 10 years. Aircraft still have late activation settings or setting their start time to anytime after mission start. They just aren't visible before spawn. Thats where uncontrolled comes in. The aircraft is physically there without a pilot, you do the command start, the pilot spawns in and the aircraft starts up.

Set late activation or changed the value in the top right corner of the panel when selecting them in the editor to anything other than 100?

Ground and ship groups have it. Aircraft and helicopter groups have a setting called "uncontrolled" and you need to add a triggered action command > start for the group to activate.

It is more an issue with how they made some of the bridges and unfortunately can't be fixed until they update how they made those. The "normal" bridges clearly have a road/rail terrain mesh rise up with a bridge crossing over it and can be assigned as targets in the editor. Those can be destroyed. The other bridge type, which for lack of a better name can be called "custom bridges". These appear to actually be part of the terrain mesh. They are noticeable because of being a different model than the other brides, may have turns on them, are colored differently on the map in addition to looking different, and connect to the terrain by changing the road on the bridge. These are the bridges that cannot be destroyed currently. I've attached some screenshots as an example.

edit: Apparently I forgot to explain it. Anyway if you leave it on default it selects a livery based on the season. Some have winter camo or as seen below snow on the vehicle. I don't think it takes location into account so you might have snow on a tank in the middle of Las Vegas or it won't switch to a desert camo.

There is an open bug report for this. If a ship fully sinks it will disappear, however the depth can stop it from sinking. It'll just settle on the sea floor if it touches that before fully submerging. I'm not sure when that change was made but the report was filed July of last year. It makes some of the same points from this thread. For example ship needs to be on fire longer, tilting to the side, and other obvious markers that the ship isn't functional.

It iterates the mission folder and looks for any file name that ends in .miz. With a quick test it appears to be in alphabetical order but it might be possible to be unreliable because it isn't doing any sorting on its own. It is completely relying on the order lfs.dir lists files in.

Yeah that has been an annoying functionality of AI ships for a while now. Recently ships gained the ability to turn to engage on this own which makes this problem that much more prevalent. There is a several year old feature request to add more ROE and other options to better control it. In the mean time your only recourse is to deny information. Either set the Blue fleet to "invisible" or remove AWACS from red so that ships over the horizon aren't detected. With NATO ships you at least have the option to put them outside the range of their anti-ship missiles, but the Russian ones can go 500km so it isn't all that practical.

That waypoint type doesn't work with carriers. The take-off and landing paths aren't connected or the same like they are at airports. So the land rearm refuel waypoint simply doesn't work. The AI lands but they have no knowledge to get back to a take-off point.

slmod 7.6 has native json support. Just need to enable it and it has a copy of the stats files in json format.

This is indeed an odd one. Best I can tell the combination of F-16 and Mk-84 is somehow the hangup. It appears that the F-16 AI really doesn't like using 4x Mk-84 bombs to do CAS. However giving a TGP to flight lead allows the wingman to attack when ordered to, but not the flight lead. Removing 2 of the bombs allows both AI to attack. In fact changing it to any other set of dumb bombs allows the AI to attack. Changing the flight to F-18s and arming them with 4x Mk-84s allows the flight to attack when expected. Spent more time than I care to admit tracking the problem down and I still am not sure why the 4x Mk-84s is the actual problem. reported.

As a trigger not yet. With scripting its been around for many years now. StaticObject.getByName('whatever'):destroy()

In the editor you should see the altitude value at the bottom UI wherever your mouse is pointed. Its part of the display that shows the current coordinates.

Check the depth of the sea ahead of it. Ships don't know how to avoid shallow sea so they just stop if they would beach.

Two schools of thought: 1. Polling a known list. 2. Using events to build a list and polling that. Unit.getByName() would be a reliable means of detecting their state. Or if you save the unit object checking Object.isExist() on it.

AI have much stricter rules to follow than people do and ED haven't added much on the AI taxi behavior front in a while. Logically IRL they could use the parallel taxi-way to get down there, use another runway to taxi or takeoff, or there might be enough space to taxi off centerline to clear it. The AI more or less only care about the shortest taxi time and are generally only allowed to cross an active runway at the ends and nowhere in the middle. There is probably a healthy mix of parking limitations being due to omissions of simply not making a parking area large enough to support an aircraft and because adding an aircraft of a given size could cause issues like that above.