Hardcard

Mission Editor is free, that's how.

1- The comparative "than" doesn't belong in that sentence 2- The hornet was released back in 2018 and it's still not finished... do you honestly think that's "A class" service?

If you want accuracy, switch to laser-guided weapons or JSOWs. JDAMs aren't reliable, regardless of launch parameters.

The way I have it set in the hornet, A/A weapon selection is done with a single button press, without the need to hold it down (I hate having to hold down buttons in combat, but that's just me). Anyway, my misgivings regarding the viper's general operation have more to do with the fact that the pilot must sacrifice either radar or HSD to do essential stuff (also, the MFDs are small, which makes matters worse). As for countermeasure management, I was referring to the bypass mode. The hornet has separate commands for chaff and flares, which makes for a perfect bypass mode, imho (FC3 style). The viper, on the other hand, doesn't have separate commands for chaff and flares, the pilot must enable/disable them manually before expending (which costs time and diverts attention away from the fight... really bad thing in my book). TPOD implementation in the viper is quite terrible atm, clearly WIP. I want the TPOD pointed at my velocity vector when I reset it, not at a steerpoint... CZ isn't for me. Also, last time I used the TPOD, the reticle on the HUD was way off, seemed totally misaligned...all in all, I ended up ditching the TPOD and using the maverick cameras instead. I'm sure all the problems will be sorted out in the future, but I'm writing this now. As for "radar modes" I meant switching from CRM to ACM (and then cycling through ACM modes), maybe it's just me and the way I have the controls set up, but it's easier for me to do in the hornet. CRM setting management in the viper is perfectly fine (I miss having a PRF setting, but I guess it's simpler without it). As for the simplicity of TMS controls, it's probably bad HOTAS configuration on my part (I'm haven't dedicated a 4-way hat to it, I'm using buttons and modifiers instead, which might not be ideal), but still, cycling between targets isn't as easy as TMS right (like the manual says), it doesn't work half of the time for me. Anyway, the worst thing about the viper's radar is the target type conversion nonsense (Search target -> Track target -> System target -> Bugged target -> STT lock)... quite the atrocity The hornet's radar might require a little more attention (only because AUTO mode is unreliable and the sweep freezing bug isn't fixed yet), but at least you can lock and engage targets at will, without having to place the cursor over each of them, keep track of where each one is (in terms of target type sequence) or rape the TMS controls As for selective jettison requiring MFD interaction in the viper (sacrificing radar/HSD and forcing submenu access), it's quite the oversight, imho. Again, the viper requires external fuel tanks to operate (unlike the hornet and most other jets in DCS), it should have a dedicated switch/button/command for fuel tank jettison only... the panic button isn't an option when carrying mixed loadouts. As for the hornet requiring MFD interaction for nearly everything, it barely forces the pilot to divert attention away from combat/lose SA, unlike the viper. MFD interaction in the hornet concerns A/G weapon management, for the most part (in my case, at least), which isn't an issue since most of it can be done before entering the combat zone. You seem to be missing my point here, which is that the viper forces you to sacrifice essential systems (radar/HSD) in order to do menial stuff (like selective jettison or switching sidewinder seeker modes), to make matters worse, these menial things usually need to be done when in combat, which is precisely when such distractions should be avoided. As for the viper's HSD, it's decent, but it can only provide contact altitude, which isn't enough for me (I want mach speed, precise bearing and range as well, which the hornet's SA page provides). Sure, it would be really nice to have the hornet's SA page show contact altitude (and mach speed) by default, but I'll settle for the current stepping system, even if it requires interaction (which I handle with HOTAS controls, so it's not a big deal). When I'm flying the hornet, not only do I know the precise BRA for the contacts around, I also know their approximate type (and also have an inkling of what they're doing), based on their "mach signature": Sustained mach 0.2-0.4 = helicopter/prop/warthog/landing aircraft (aka free kill) Sustained mach 0.5-0.7 = frogfoot/jet trainer/fat viper/fat hornet/tanker/AWACS Sustained mach 0.9+ = Enemy fighter loaded for CAP/viggen doing viggen stuff Sustained mach 1.6+ = Sustained mach 2+ = / In the viper, I have to either bug them or STT lock them in order to get an airspeed reading, which isn't nearly as practical and definitely not an option when trying to be sneaky.

I'm afraid it's not possible, there's no way to script keyboard commands, afaik. However, you can use voice command software instead, which can execute any number of keyboard + mouse combinations with a single voice command. I've recently created a voice command profile for the tomcat (to spare me the torture of using the Jester wheel menu) and the results are quite awesome. I used the free version of VoiceBot to do this, it works well for the most part. (Sometimes it'll have trouble recognizing certain words, so you'll need to try alternative ones, no big deal)

Your minivan can't do mach 1.6, no matter how much you strip it No reason, I just pointed out that the warthog is a niche aircraft with annoying limitations

The hornet needs to be flown and operated just like the viper or the jeff (they all have fly-by-wire), there's nothing special about the hornet that singles it out in this regard. If it's almost a UAV, then the viper and the jeff are too, since those also use flight computers. Come on, the viper's TPOD doesn't even have proper snowplow or vector modes, it's a PITA just to reset it, HUD indicators are off, it's still barebones... so painful that I don't even equip it. If you find the hornet's TPOD harder to operate/more annoying than that, you must be doing something wrong . I also learned the TPOD with the warthog, which is why I approximated the hornet's TPOD controls as much as I could (mapping OSB buttons in a matching way, when possible). By the time I was done, there wasn't much of a difference, I'd even say that my TPOD mappings for the hornet ended up being simpler, allowing for quicker operation. As for the jeff's TPOD, I only used it briefly during the free month event last year, so I don't really have an informed opinion... I do recall that it couldn't be ground stabilized from long ranges, which was a bummer.

A stripped down hornet (no wing pylons, ~50% fuel) is practically as fast as the viper in DCS... quite the ferrari You definitely don't want to face one of those in combat (even less now that the hornet is finally getting ECM, which will render TWS useless). As for the warthog, it's an excellent CAS platform, but it lacks standoff weapons, requires fighter escort and it's slower than a P-51. It can't compete with hornet, viper or jeff when it comes to pounding heavily defended bases in the presence of enemy CAP... I love it, though.

I honestly don't get all that hornet hate. Hornet is very pilot-friendly, intuitive, forgiving, packs all sorts of awesome toys, makes everything easy, etc. The only real problem it has is that it's underpowered (disappointing acceleration and top speed when carrying a standard loadout), if it weren't for that, it would be utterly OP. It's also curious to see that some people find it less intuitive than the viper, in my case it was the opposite. For example, I expected the viper to have a very straightforward selective jettison system (since external fuel tanks are essential), only to discover that it requires MFD interaction (navigating through menus, sacrificing either radar or HSD page), it can't be activated outside the menu... basically, it interrupts combat flow, which pisses me off. It forces the pilot to rely on the panic button, which is problematic when carrying mixed loadouts, since it'll jettison all A/G ordinance, including HARMs. The hornet, on the other hand, relies on cockpit buttons and a knob, which can be set beforehand. So, when the moment comes, I simply press the jettison button (which can be bound to HOTAS/keyboard) and I'm done... no need to take my eyes off the bandit/terrain and sacrifice the radar/SA page. Other things that the hornet makes easy when compared to the viper: weapon selection & management, countermeasure management, TPOD operation, radar mode switching, taxiing, etc. Imho, the viper only has the following advantages over the hornet: superior speed (+ acceleration & climb rate), superior cockpit visibility, ability to mount triple racks, ability to use cbu-97s and superior countermeasure capacity. The hornet beats it in every other aspect (again, imho) As for the "flying ipad", the only disadvantages it has when compared to the viper are: inferior speed, lack of HMD, reduced cockpit visibility, crappy gun that needs to be fed, inferior ordinance capacity and inferior countermeasure capacity. The rest are advantages: better active missiles, better HSD, larger MFDs (and 3 instead of 2), some of the best A/G toys in DCS, simpler weapon management, etc.

Oh, ofc, I assumed you were running the script on a dedicated server, net commands are for server environment only. Why do you need the ucids, exactly? There might be other ways of achieving your goal.

Aside from the missing parenthesis, the script might not be fully protected against nil errors caused by missing groups. I doubt that this line alone will cut it, since it might return true even if the groups aren't actually present (just having them listed in the mission database is enough, I think): if Group.getByName(tbl[i]) then To make sure, I'd use :isExist() instead (or in addition to it) if Group.getByName(tbl[i]) and Group.getByName(tbl[i]):isExist() then

Upload the mission file here

I'd need to see the full function to give you a better answer, since I don't know where you're getting playerID from (a server event handler, maybe?). Looks like you specified the optional attribute "ucid" via valid string, so net.get_player_info should return that value only, instead of the whole table... Have you verified that the returned value is indeed a string/number and not the whole table, a nil value or something else? (It never hurts to use tostring() in cases like this, just to make sure that whatever comes out will be a string) You could also try not providing the optional attribute and trying to navigate the returned table directly, see what the field ucid contains (if anything). A possible problem that I see in your script is that you used id as a variable name, which I seem to recall is a big no-no (likely to cause conflicts). I'd avoid using scripting keywords as variable names (like id, initiator, target, weapon, unit, group, object, time, type, vec2, vec3, point, zone, etc.) Try naming that variable iD instead. Right now nothing else comes to mind... the last time I wrote stuff for server environment I had to use net.dostring_in to get flag values from the mission environment (it was the only thing I could get from there, and it was the only way to get it)... things might've changed since then, which would explain why you were able to retrieve flag values at all with that script.

1- The decision to include the new Kuznetsov model in the Supercarrier module was probably made before COVID struck. 2- The COVID lockdown has brought hundreds of new players to DCS, I've personally met several of them online and I've recommended modules to them, which they've bought. If anything, I'd say that the COVID lockdown has boosted sales and increased interest in DCS World (natural consequence of giving people free time that they didn't have before). As for the new Kuznetsov model, I agree that if it has to be locked behind a paywall, at least there should be an option to get it separately.

Feel free to buy me a TB SSD, then... they are really cheap and money isn't an issue, right? Now seriously, not everybody has $80 to spare for a TB SSD that wouldn't be needed in the first place if DCS didn't come with a host of useless liveries that are ridiculously heavy. If you don't like that argument, then consider the bandwidth problem. Many people around the world are charged per MB downloaded by their ISP, so these heavy and useless liveries that people are forced to download in order to play DCS are definitely bad news. Also, consider the time (and server load) saved by removing non-essential liveries from DCS builds... but I guess that faster and cheaper downloads (for everybody, including ED) are a bad thing in your opinion. Finally, consider the additional stress you're putting on your drive by having these useless and heavy liveries stored in the DCS folder... we're talking over 10GB here, which is a big deal for people who still rely on 120GB SSDs (many people like that still around, believe it or not). This isn't a brainless moaning thread, it simply points out a very real problem that many DCS users have, which defies common sense, and tries to provide solutions, in the hopes that ED devs will take note. Now, you might be surprised to find people pointing this kind of stuff out, but I'm just as surprised at the ease with which you dismissed this obvious problem without even thinking it through.

After several experiments and some trial & error, I've managed to make the IRAN AIR FORCE IL-76s liveries work with the IL-78M tanker as well. (Iran doesn't have IL-78M tankers available in Mission Editor, but you can always add a USAF Aggressors or Russian one and use the Iranian skins on them) I've also adapted the IRAN AIR FORCE C-130 pack2 liveries for use with the KC-130 (since I missed the IRAN AIR FORCE KC-130 semi-fictional pack , for some reason ) Here you have links for all the liveries I've adapted, in case someone is interested ( extract to C:\Users\UserName\Saved Games\DCS.openbeta\Liveries ) A-50: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_kuyHMycXREOBlYEiY-PTcTa97kBcIwQ/view?usp=sharing IL-78M: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AZ6WbLufBt396fPMR4v7-UYSg-JJp4xG/view?usp=sharing KC-130: https://drive.google.com/file/d/14y3fQZZvs2idMBmu5Vkovd1sRDMhmEiv/view?usp=sharing

If anyone is interested, the IL76 AWACS IRIAF 5-8208 Simorgh skin (for KJ2000) can be adapted to A-50 by following these steps:

@mboddicker Nice detective work there. Yes, you're probably correct, I haven't updated SWAPR to be compatible with the latest MOOSE builds yet. I might do it one of these days, when I feel like torturing myself some more @gavagai What @pacastro said. @Fankmaster By not using the prefix/suffix of clients you don't want SWAPR to replace. @Azza276 I'd avoid multi-client groups, stick to one client per group only. As for AI wingmen within client groups, I seem to remember that SWAPR automatically removes AI replacements for the specific client spawned (and respawns them if needed). I'll look into it when I decide to update SWAPR (if I feel like torturing myself again, like I said), but don't hold your breath. @All Sorry for the late replies, I'm not as interested in scripting/DCS as I used to be, so I barely check the forum these days. Happy new year, btw.

As you can see in the track, RWR detects both the Roland ADS' radar and missile launch, so the HARM should be able to pick it up as well. Also, the Su-25T's fantasmagoria pod detects the Roland ADS' radar just fine.

I'm using the DED IDs from this table: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...Qtw/edit#gid=0 Roland ADS is supposed to be ID 201, but HARMs don't seem to pick it up. I've tested this several times in both SP and MP, using IDs 201 and 205 (in case the table from the link had the Roland IDs swapped), no joy. (I'm using the latest OB) Test Mission: Roland_HARM.miz Track: HARM_Roland.trk Roland_HARM.miz

@Ferchu1976 The viper's radar takes its sweet time to build tracks, also, TMS right doesn't always do what it's supposed to. I've found that reducing the azimuth setting to 1 (narrow search) speeds up the process. Also, if you're having trouble building tracks in TWS, switch to RWS first, then back to TWS when you have a track.

The problem is that he often fails to get a lock on targets that are beyond visual range too. I do GCI regularly in MP and I've lost count of how many times Jester has gotten my tomcat teammates in real trouble (often killed). The following is a rather common chain of events in MP: The tomcat carries fat phoenixes and a powerful radar for a reason... if it can't consistently get locks and fire beyond 20nm (the very things it was designed to do, which enemy fighters are able to do), it becomes kind of useless.

201 doesn't seem to work for Roland ADS.

This has also happened to another user today, so I can confirm it's not just a strange bug on my end. We were both playing Blueflag Persian Gulf server, he got a CTD when guiding the walleye during the very final stage, right before it hit.

That's terrible news, then. Sounds like you need a team of MP testers. If I were you, I'd ask the community for volunteers, I'm sure many would answer the call (I can ask people who regularly fly tomcat in MP). I would gladly perform tests and gather data for you, but I don't own the tomcat module (since I won't pay such a high price for a module that doesn't work as it's supposed to in MP)