Jump to content

Mistermann

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1090

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Mistermann

  1. Mistermann
    That group is about as small as I can make it. I suppose I could pull out the Ural into its own group. I think/theorize it has something to do with internal (CORE DCS) housekeeping that's going on when units are damaged - which I can't control. The boys and I are testing some new CSAR voiceovers today and I'll make the change to the groups and post. That's my general concern. Adding more units to the map is going to impact performance. Nothing we can do other than cull the eye candy. Marianas is well known for being poorly optimized. So we're rolling dice trying to balance eye candy with real targets on map + scripting. One thing you can try is to go into the Initialization trigger and turn OFF #StopGaps. It'll prevent that script from loading and immediately remove all statics from clients. It'll give you some idea if removing statics will help your current situation. To turn it back on revert that line back to what you see below. Glad you're having fun!
  2. Mistermann
    No, they are baked into mission.
  3. Mistermann
    Update: January 25, 2025 Just released v2.006 to the files section - https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3342301/ There's a lot of work and testing that went into this update. Complete changelog is on the files page and contained in the first trigger embedded in the ME. Eagle eyed observers likely noticed a few of these already. Highlights are: FIX - Changed two groups of red units "[Jungle] Resupply" and "[Jungle] Infantry" to be much smaller and less spread out over the map. These groups were too big and too spread out. When players damaged any units in either group, the sim lagged significantly. By limiting group size and spread, the lag disappeared. I posted a video of this a few posts back for anyone interested. We believe this is the source of the slideshow that people reported. If you continue experiencing this issue using v2.006, please post here or DM me directly so we can further triage. All client slots now start as statics so airfields and FARPs are populated. When players select a slot, the static is replaced by their client aircraft. This is using @cfrag StopGaps script. Update 1/27/25. Those hosting this (locally or via dedicated server) must install a small script ('stopGapGUI.lua') in their SAVED GAMES\Scripts\Hooks folder to prevent clients from spawning in the air, falling to the ground, and self destructing. This is due to a MP synch issue. This lua is found here - https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3331434/ All of @Devil 505 static work at Andersen, Olf Orote, and the Northern FARP is included. Added Chinooks to the mission Added ELT beacons to CSAR pilot bailout voiceovers Added new skins for many of the statics at Andersen and seen in Devil's videos. You can find links to these skins in the download page. Note: We are sensitive to performance of the community. If this update causes unacceptable performance hits to those flying, please let us know. Currently working on randomizing some of the CSAR voiceovers to add variety to the CSAR gameplay element when picking up downed pilots and delivering them to the MASH. Enjoy!!
  4. Mistermann
    Nice catch. INCOMING!!!
  5. Mistermann
    Thanks for posting these @Devil 505. Epic videos of some of our best coop missions yet (its only taken us 2 years to get here). Radio traffic coordinating firepower and deconfliction was probably the best we've done. ... and I did my part to add to the pilot carnage generating CSAR missions!
  6. Mistermann
    Yes they are. At least they were when I originally played.
  7. Mistermann
    Awesome news, Wirt! Thank you.
  8. Mistermann
    "Public available specs" redefined! Looks like the joke's on me!
  9. Mistermann
    Thanks - you're correct on density. Maybe a poor choice of description in the video. Not script related we've removed all scripts and still experienced this issue. If people are interested in what I found I will put into a spoiler block. Those who don't care can simply skip over. I get it to come up just fine. We do have easy comms turned ON in the mission, but not enforced ... that might have something to do with it, IDK. SRS works across all aircraft we have in this mission.
  10. Mistermann
    I am pretty sure I have narrowed down the problem fellas.
  11. Mistermann
    Not sure what @Devil 505 means by "DS". It's not Desert Storm, however.
  12. Mistermann
    Precisely my point, brother ... people need to understand you're running a business. Pulling my comment out of context makes me look like I'm against you. I am not. We need ED to be a healthy company for the long run.
  13. Mistermann
    Maybe because it doesn't work? I've given up on you guys ever fixing it.
  14. Mistermann
    Lots of passion here in this thread. I meant that. Here's my take. This is EDs intellectual property to do with whatever they want. We are simply the customer who pays them and keeps the company afloat through purchases of said IP. One doesn't exist without the other. What I take from NLs comments here is they are doing a 5th gen fighter and they are all-in on it. Their IP, their decision - not up for discussion. If you don't like this decision it don't buy it. We, as customers have no say in how they allocate internal resources. As an extremely experienced (old) software executive I understand all developers aren't interchangeable and over time can develop affinities towards the sections of the product they work on. If not careful, you end up with lots of specialists that aren't able to move between projects creating gridlock in development pipelines and an overall inability to be nimble across the entire set of projects. Regardless of "why" ... we're being told development of any new Aircraft doesn't impact any core initiatives underway. At the end of the day, if doesn't really matter "why" this is the case. Its how ED runs their shop. They've done this for decades. I personally think this boils down to one very simple factor - $$$$ ED could spend the time to make the most robust ATC or any of the hundreds of core features I want addressed, but they can't/won't monetize them. The only way, in their current business model, to generate revenue is through new modules. And herein lies the challenge. They've run out of marketable 4th gen content. If I'm in their shoes I make sure to maximize the revenue per dollar spent creating the module. In other words what are you going to sell more of and maximize revenue? They've just told us that answer - F35. Now its on us to decide if we like this direction. Personally, I was shocked to see the most secret 5th gen fighter in the US inventory. Clearly ED's approach on this aircraft is "different" than those in the past. Revenue generation makes companies change course. Time will tell if this is good for the community as a whole. Maybe today's newsletter will shed some light on their decision to enter 5th gen fighters and how they overcome the overwhelming amount of classified systems on such a modern airframe.
  15. Mistermann
    It likely was .... Makes me wonder what they had to remove at the last minute.
  16. Mistermann
    Can we please stop spamming the "watch the video" popup. I watched it already - no need to continue telling me about it.
  17. Mistermann
    I based my comment of banning on this admin command found in the SLmod wiki. I personally have no need for it, but presumed it was what @HungryCoyote was after.
  18. Mistermann
    Fair. I feel it boils down to ED's corporate communication policy and assessment of risk. You either "get in front" of this situation or "react" once it gets worse.
  19. Mistermann
    You are absolutely correct. If his employees all walked out the door, were fired, or were all abducted by aliens, he doesn't need to tell us. What he said about his modules working and not dead was true last week and last month. His assurance that "there's nothing to see here" rings hollow if indeed there's a staffing shortage for whatever reason. Regardless, at the end of the day, this is a 3rd party private matter. What troubles me is ED's willingness to let Polychop own the narrative here. On the one hand they don't want us getting our information from outside this very controlled forum. Yet, in this case are more than happy to allow a discord post be the source of truth. I happen to own both PC products and am happy with what I purchased. Will they continue to work with core DCS over time? As a crusty old, very experienced public software product executive, I appreciate what Sven is trying to say, yet I also know if his staff is somehow limited, that it only takes one core change to DCS and the house of cards comes tumbling down.
  20. Mistermann
    I am well aware. You are letting your customer base be mislead or at a minimum influenced by outside organizations. It isn't a good look. Public or private doesn't matter. As a business leader, your management team should be considering a message to us.
  21. Mistermann
    Oh this is not great news at all. I saw the post last night over on the site that shall not be named here. I read through the content which included what appeared to be a screen grab of @Kinkkujuustovoileipä comment from a discord site saying he found himself with a "bunch of unplanned free time" pondering what to do next. I won't post that image, but anyone who wants to see it can find it pretty easily. Now I arrive back here this morning to find a post from "Polychop Sven", who I presume is Polychop's Managing Director. His statement tries to calm the herd. Yet I can't help but notice the strikingly similar rhetoric to the other situation we all know about. Says his modules are not "gone" or "dead". Well of course not. They are released. We have them. They clearly aren't gone or dead. Its what he doesn't say that's concerning. If he's indeed lost the bulk of his talent, it will be extremely difficult to maintain and upgrade his modules. Lastly, in this day and age, I recognize everything can be faked/spoofed. Do I 100% trust the authenticity of screen grabs from other sites? No, I don't. But I don't 100% disbelieve, either. Time will tell. I HOPE ED releases some sort of official statement (possibly jointly) so we can hear it directly from ED's "source of truth".
  22. Mistermann
    I highly recommend putting SLmod onto your server. There are lots of great options for you to manage your server - including a "Ban" feature.
  23. Mistermann
    Interested in feedback from others who have played with the latest version of this mission. The fog dissipation effect seems to cause VR artifacts whenever switching between fog settings. Anyone else experiencing momentary graphic glitching we can attribute to the fog dissipation logic? Personally, I really like the fog and how it goes away over time. I could do without the glitchiness, however.
  24. Mistermann
    Until there's public available specs, that's a pipe dream.
  25. Mistermann
    January 10, 2025: Small update coming Happy New Year everyone! After one heck of a Jungle battle last night with the team, I finally got around to updating this mission with a couple of tweaks. 1) Per @352nd_Oscar suggestion, I dropped in some USMC client A4s out at Andersen 2) I went in and updated the fog settings so the fog dissipates as the sun comes up. The mission now starts at 0615LT at dawn. The fog will gradually reduce over the first couple of hours of gameplay. By 0900LT, the fog will be completely gone. Below is a quick 20 second video showing this using time compression to show the entire duration to dissipate. I'll update this thread when I get the file uploaded. File uploaded to ED Files (https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/userfiles/84b/l8zh91o50hfkkwl2cadgf4fljkc622vn/Into_the_Jungle_v2_002.miz)
×
×
  • Create New...