Psyrixx

Thanks for the support! Worst case scenario, the mission will lose the verification team until the ability to drop off units is added to the Huey, at which point it will make its triumphant return. I'm still playing around with it, just to see if there's a way I can make it work as I think the verification team is a pretty awesome bit of the mission. But if it doesn't work at the moment, it doesn't work. We'll see what I can figure out!

Markeebo: You were correct. I fixed the Pontiac spawn issue with the multiple Chevy 1-1's. I also found a few other errors where I was using "All of Group in Zone" which currently always evaluates to true, regardless of whether that group even exists or not. I've changed to "Part of Group in Zone", which is evaluated properly. As for the crash to desktop bug, I can definitely say it has something to do with creating waypoints for the dynamic verification team but I can't figure out why that is broken in the latest version. I haven't touched my code, and it still works in 1.2.4. So I'm guessing something was changed that broke how MIST (the MIssion Scripting Tools library) uses the AI Task Controller to create waypoints for units. I'm going to wait until the patch that is supposed to come out this week to see if it fixes things, otherwise I really have no idea how to fix this problem unless MIST gets an update. I use MIST partially because I'm not a LUA programmer and the SSE documentation is very difficult to read so I don't know how to set waypoints dynamically through code without MIST. I'll keep playing around with things, and if nothing else I'll at least update the mission to just spawn the verify team at the asset's location so that they verify him, and then have them all despawn upon verification. It removes some of the awesomeness of being able to watch the infantry run up to the asset then run back to the chopper, but that's the best I know how to do at the moment.

Just noticed in my mission that the few triggers I had set to rely on "all of group in zone" were always being triggered, regardless of whether the group even existed in the mission or not. Don't know if it is a known bug or already reported (though I can't find any threads relating to it here in the bugs forum). A simple fix for now is to use the trigger "part of group in zone" instead, which works properly. =)

I will look into this and see if I can reproduce (doesn't sound like that will be a problem) and also whether or not I can fix it. Glad you've been enjoying the mission! I'm working on my second (a continuation of this storyline, as a matter of fact and equally full of taskings for all manner of aircraft). Still in planning / early development stages. I might end up re-making this once ED releases the "official" ability to drop off / pick up troops from the UH-1H as my script is solely a workaround way of doing things, and it's very possible that if I can't figure out and fix what's wrong that may end up needing to be the solution. I'll take a look at it this weekend and let you know what I can find. Thanks for the bug report!

Try reverting to the latest version of 1.2.4 and see if TrackIR starts working again. Here's the best way to accomplish that. It should downgrade your DCS World installation to version 1.2.4.12913 and if the update really is to blame for your TrackIR not working anymore, it should start working again after this downgrade. Then, wait until the fixed version of 1.2.5 is released within the next few days and see if that fixes your TrackIR issues. If nothing else, it will narrow down the cause to actually being the update to v1.2.5.

Make sure the TrackIR is still set in the controls configuration under the axis settings and that you are getting response via the TrackIR configuration application. I'm sure you've checked both of these, but bringing them up just in case.

This has been my point in pretty much every post I've made on the forum. Just look forward even as soon as 1-2 years and DCS: World is going to be absolutely incredible in scope and stability. We're just going through a rough patch at the moment with Eagle Dynamics merging several products into one comprehensive world. Kudos to them for taking this step, as merging several projects from a coding standpoint is usually the most hellish of nightmares. Doing it while at the same time updating and upgrading it for the future is an incredible feat for any company. :thumbup:

Definitely. :)

I'm under the impression that if the runway that has ILS is not in use, the ILS signal is not broadcast so as not to confuse pilots. At some airports both directions of the runway have ILS, some only one direction has ILS, and at some airports the runways don't have ILS at all, VFR only. If the ILS is broadcast for the glide slope to Runway 07 but the airport is landing and departing aircraft from Runway 25, it would only confuse matters to be broadcasting a glide slope for Runway 07 and have people be lining up to land against the flow of traffic. So Eddie is correct in saying that ILS is directional. However if Runway 07 were in use, the morse signal would be picked up from any bearing to the airport to help you line up with that runway. So Johnpilot is correct in saying that you'll receive the morse signal from wherever you are. But it assumes the runway that uses ILS is an active runway. =)

Isn't DCS 64-bit only yet? In that case you'd need to upgrade to 64-bit Windows. Not sure if they dropped 32-bit support yet but it was announced a few months ago.

Yeah, I was a bit taken aback by that reply myself. You and I were just having a discussion, nothing more. I also see your point and understand where it's coming from, even if I don't agree with it. :) Precisely. We were just discussing our views about a possible solution to negative posts on the forum and people jumping to conclusions with regards to feature teasers. I didn't take anything you said personally or offensively, and I was just putting my own opinions out there as well. Agreed; however, I completely understand where they're coming from. Hopefully they don't go totally quiet before the release of EDGE, but I wouldn't be surprised if they did. You underestimate the power of the entitled customer. ;) As I've said, I think it'll just lead to more "why isn't <feature x> done yet" posts: maybe not immediately after they are acknowledged in the tracker but let's take, for example, the Sidewinder FFB bug. That's been around for a while now and they haven't had the resources to dedicate to fixing it up until this point. Let's just say for argument's sake it has been 6 months since the bug was reported. If it's sitting in a bug tracker staring people who are looking forward to the fix in the face (of which it seems there are many in the forums), I would assume every patch announcement you'd have posts filled with "why isn't FFB bug fixed yet" and lists of other bugs that people think are super important that maybe haven't been taken care of yet, and these posts might even be slightly more hostile than what we're seeing currently since the bug is acknowledged and there is a definite time window of how long it has been sitting unfixed. That's not to say that every FFB user or person waiting for something to be fixed will be flaming the forums (and I expect the vast majority of them actually wouldn't) but when you have 8 or 9 bugs or features that are outstanding and highly anticipated that the extra-vocal-negative-few seem to be desperately waiting on, the forums could get pretty ugly if these acknowledged bugs aren't immediately addressed. Neither do I. I think it could be a great idea a little further down the road once DCS: World has stabilized a bit and they have more time to put in to it as a feature unto itself, but it is totally an extra bit of awesome that doesn't make or break how I feel about the product in any way. From what I understand, even though I'm likely wrong, Nevada and EDGE have had a very rough ride changing hands from a modder to a developer to a division with in Eagle Dynamics to handle the new content internally once external sources fell apart. And the whole development process is a constantly evolving project. They may have a map of Nevada from a previous version of the EDGE engine that they scrapped and rewrote, and now the old map is no longer compatible with the new IG so they have to rebuild it within the new engine. It might effectively end up being the exact same map, but if it doesn't transfer into the new architecture, they may have no other choice. In this case, I'd be excited for the progress because it means they didn't build the new engine to fit the old map, they built a new engine to take advantage of new technology and as a result have to remake the map to fit the engine. It would be wonderful, as a developer myself, to get a brief history of what has gone on with EDGE / Nevada just to see how the big boys have dealt with the issues that have allegedly dogged it for the past few years. Definitely not expecting one, and don't think ED needs to say anything, really, but I do think it would be a neat read (and might even cool some of the tempers around here). Also, if they just started working on the updated map recently (within the past few weeks as Wags stated) and they're able to get Nevada up and working by the end of the year like they're predicting (so within the next six months), it says a LOT about how quickly even newer maps might come out that are compatible with EDGE. If they scrapped the old IG/EDGE and rebuilt it with a focus on being able to rapidly deploy new theaters for DCS and now they are leveraging that technology to rebuild the Nevada map from scratch... Of course, I may be WAY off from what the actual story is. This is just my take on what information I've seen. No hard feelings bro, I do appreciate your position on this and like I said wasn't trying to single you out in any way. You happened to be the only person who offered any kind of dialog worth responding to, and that's why I have been discussing this with you. I hope the forum moderators see it that way too, as between you and me there wasn't any bad blood expressed in any of our posts. Hopefully the 1.2.5 hotfix is released tomorrow as planned and takes care of all of the currently outstanding issues caused by the 1.2.5 patch and Friday we get another scheduled progress update from Wags. As I keep saying: the future of DCS looks VERY bright and people just need to have a bit more patience and appreciate how awesome what we have is before we get to marvel at all the cool new stuff on the horizon. :thumbup:

If you are running on an operating system other than Windows XP and don't particularly need the Advanced Flight Model to be working on the A-10A from Flaming Cliffs 3, go ahead and get the update now. Besides, when the hotfix comes out to address the few bugs that were introduced in this patch, it should make for a smaller download if you've already bumped up to 1.2.5. :)

I'm really not trying to start a flame war here (and I also want to let you know that I'm not singling you or any part of your argument out), but I do want to point out that all they really "owe" anyone is to provide a product that works as advertised. If you bought a module and can load the module up and fly in it, they've provided you with what they've promised you. Anything else is just icing on the cake. That being said, Eagle Dynamics is awesome enough to be a stand up developer that wants to provide us with the best damn flight simulator available on the market. They are more than nice enough to provide us with freebies (such as the AFM for the current owners of Flaming Cliffs 3 planes at no additional cost). They are also courteous enough to provide us with updates on their progress of updating the product(s) on a weekly basis. The weekly updates are a relatively new thing, too. It wasn't too long ago when there would be a significant stretch of time between news regarding patches, and we certainly didn't get many teaser images of new models/features that were coming in to the game. And I must say I definitely appreciate the increase in communication and to be honest the reason for all of my long winded replies is that I am afraid that if some of the people in these forums don't settle down a bit and relax, these weekly updates might disappear (not looking at you, P*Funk, just speaking about the general negativity towards what has/hasn't been included in patches). We've already lost news updates on Nevada/EDGE due to negativity and I don't want to see the weekly updates disappear entirely because people are just too impatient to wait until whatever feature or bug they've been anticipating a fix for is addressed. Again, my whole point has been "read the change log, if it's not included it hasn't been addressed". The people posting about new bugs introduced in this patch, or saying that the A-10A flight model didn't seem to be different are being very helpful to ED and as we can see, they have double checked and confirmed that these issues do exist and now they are working on fixing them with a high priority. These aren't the people who are potentially putting anything at risk and their feed back is very likely appreciated by both developers and other forum visitors. I'm actually not saying that a public bug tracker is a bad idea. I think it has merit and is overall a wonderful idea. I also think that your suggestion could end up being counter-productive at the moment so I'm just listing reasons why it might not be in their best interests at this time to try and implement a public bug tracking system. I do honestly feel that if such a tracker went public, there would be more posts about "why isn't feature <x> implemented yet" than we have even now. Since a lot of forum visitors seem to see something in an update and, even if it's version 1 of a concept design for a new feature (and is presented as such), they immediately jump to thinking that will be a feature coming in the next patch. With a bug tracker to list all of the bugs and/or feature requests, I feel there would be no end to the complaints about what should or should not be addressed in each individual patch. It's possible ED feels this way too and that's why they haven't implemented any form of public bug tracker. It's also possible that they just don't have a dedicated web team to set it up and manage it. Regardless, ED seems to be very well connected with their community and much more so than many of the larger studios that DO have dedicated teams to handle such things and my entire point is that they've done right by us so far, so I trust them to continue to improve the product without us needing to worry about what bugs have or have not been seen by them. Taking several separate products and merging them into a single cohesive vision is an amazing undertaking in itself, and is bound to introduce bugs and performance problems. The fact that they're not only addressing all of the major ones but also trying to introduce a fair amount of new content into the product without charging anyone extra for it is just absolutely amazing to me. It's definitely not something they owe us for purchasing the product, but they're addressing it anyways. So my very long winded point is, some of the more uptight people here on the forums need to chillax a bit, realize they're getting a heck of a lot for what they've paid for their products, and just let ED do their thing and improve upon what we've got. A lot of really cool stuff is coming, we all just have to have some patience. :thumbup:

What I'm saying is that ED doesn't represent the public like a congressman does. They're a private company. The fact that they give us weekly updates is amazing in and of itself. There's a place to post bugs and that should be good enough. If and when they get around to fixing them, or even acknowledging them, is their business. Is the game playable? Yes. Are there bugs? Yes. Are any super-major-showstopping bugs? Sure, a few, and they're working on resolving them. Do people want <feature x> as well? I have no doubt. But guess what? The bugs are going to take precedence. And whatever order they get fixed in depends on what projects the developers responsible for fixing those bugs are currently working on and how important it is to the overall picture of what they want the game to be. They don't owe it to any of us to even give us a heads up that they're fixing stuff. They could just be like the guys over at DICE or a plethora of other large game development studios and release patches without any notice and generally have horrible community relations. Instead, they devote some of their energies to interacting with their customers and fans. Telling them that isn't enough and they should spend additional time setting up a bug tracker and constantly monitoring it and keeping it up to date is just unnecessary. To be honest, that time would be better spent improving the game. It's not like they can all of a sudden flip a switch and have a fully populated bug tracking system. It takes developer time and energy to not only set it up but also populate it and then maintain it to make sure there aren't duplicate posts, etc. Which, if the forums are any indication, there will be thousands of duplicate submissions to sift through. Too much of a time sink for a smaller company. All I'm saying is: submit your bug and assume it has been seen. Most of the mission critical ones will be acknowledged and addressed very quickly, and the rest will be gotten to when resources allow. Yeah it isn't ideal to have zero feedback, but there are TONS of ED Testers as well as Wags who frequent the forums and keep an eye on all of these things. I can almost guarantee if it has been mentioned in the proper channels, someone has forwarded it up the chain of command to the developers. :thumbup: Edit: And I'm not saying that Eagle Dynamics way is perfect. There are other studios that have more resources to commit to community interaction, managing a bug tracker, running frequently updated Wiki's and web presences, etc. At some point, Eagle Dynamics may get big enough or reorganize themselves in a way that this will be possible for them; however, I highly doubt that telling them how to run their company will accomplish much more than annoy the very people who are trying to keep the community happy. Have patience, there are more important things than a few bugs and features in a highly complicated piece of computer software. Edit 2: And we all know that no matter how often you write your congressman, his aide is the one who reads your letter before promptly filing it in the paper shredder. :P

If there's a post about it in the Bugs and Problems forum there's a pretty good chance ED knows about it. In fact, if you use the Search function and find any posts related to whatever you're about to ask about, there's a pretty good chance ED knows about it and will work on it in the future when time and resources allow. If an official bug tracker for DCS existed, these constant whining posts would not go away. They would just change into "Bug x exists in the tracker, so why isn't it fixed in <latest version number here>? Since it's in the bug tracker it should be fixed already! COME ON GUYS IT WAS REPORTED <number of days> AGO!! NEVER BUYING MODULES AGAIN. Q_Q" If a bug is listed in the Bugs and Problems forum, assume ED knows about it and will work on it in the future with no promises until the patch has been released and it is specifically listed in the change log. Even a planned change list isn't a 100% guarantee, as that is the nature of software development. So what you propose already exists, people just choose not to use or acknowledge it.

These weren't supposed to make 1.2.5, they just showed a few work in progress screenshots. A "look what's coming in the future when it's ready" teaser. Also, please read the update notes. At the very bottom. Notes 1 and 2. Guys, come on. The internet isn't that hard. I know 'tl;dr' is the prevalent mentality but it's just frustrating to the people who do take the extra 5 seconds to scan the release notes to look at the upcoming changes and I'm sure it's absolutely infuriating to the people who put together the weekly updates to see every little teaser taken out of context to mean "this will absolutely without question be in the next update". Were wingtip vortices mentioned at any point in the release notes? No? There's probably a very very good chance they weren't planned for inclusion this time around. I'm not trying to be mean, but please exercise some common courtesy and decency before posting.

Awesome, downloading it right now. DCS just keeps getting better and better!

I stand corrected! But ultimately I don't care if the ATC updates are present in 1.2.5 or not. I'd rather have them done and done well than just pushed in for the sake of hitting a deadline. I can wait until 1.2.6 or 1.2.7 or even 2.0 for ATC updates if it came down to it. To me, the pattern I think I've observed over the past several version updates has been one of trying to kill all of the large bugs that plague the core engine while slowly adding features as they can. I think this is a very smart strategy to follow as once they get rid of all of the 'show stopper' bugs, they can focus more dedicated resources on feature upgrades. To re-state what a few people have already said, just because a feature is planned for a specific update doesn't mean it is promised. Plans can (and often do) change, as circumstances dictate. Wags' signature does include the "everything is subject to change" caveat, after all. Besides, "improvements to the ATC system" may mean nothing more than "we made it so they reply 1/2 second quicker than they used to". I agree that it would be great to have more information on what improvements are coming, but I expect they'll tell us when they're ready. :)

With regards to the questions about ATC making it into 1.2.5, I don't recall Wags or anyone saying it was a planned feature for 1.2.5, only that they were in the process of revamping it for a future update. I could be wrong, but I wasn't expecting it in this patch. Not expecting the wingtip vapor either. Or any of the new models. I think those have all been presented as things that they're working on but aren't ready yet.

YOU! You are still dangerous. But you can be my wingman any time. ;) :pilotfly:

hahahaha, touché :P

I for one don't see any other true simulators coming anywhere near DCS: World any time soon. It would take much, much more than flashy graphics to impress me. And as Eagle Dynamics are currently re-working ... well it seems like pretty much every legacy model that they've got, and with the promise of a large number of new flight model modules and significant engine improvements in the future... I mean, I for one am happy with what we've got now. So I can't WAIT to see what we get in the coming years. :pilotfly: :joystick: :D

Fixed.

Can't see the forest for the trees.