Amarok_73

Installed today drivers version 23.7.1 and whole quite long session on MT passed without CTD. It left me carefully euphoric.

Does anybody else have been in the situation when change of airport coalition was not recognized by the planes? I have such issue on Syria, where I have changed side of Palmyra from blue to red, but red planes have "no available" for any ammunition, while if I'll add the blue plane to the same airport, it has full selection as well, as the control tower speaks with him. I've checked the mission file from the miz package, and airport number 28 is visible there as "RED". EDIT: Sorry, my bad, I've left the TACAN unit that was belonging to the blue coalition and was set as hidden.

It seems the situation is back under control.

No worries Flappie, I don't think anybody assumes that.

@Flappie I did as You told, check the date and time settings, they're correct, so here's the log from one of the serversdcs.log

@Wags@Flappie @BIGNEWYGentlemen, is it anything You can confirm that is on the ED side?

Hello, We have problem with our dedicated servers. They starting but do not appear in the server browser. The server list in the WebGUI on the DCS web page looks as on the attached screen, and the number in the server name periodically changes. Looking into the log file I can see, there is the three messages that appears continuously: "2023-07-02 07:27:55.603 INFO ASYNCNET (Main): Registering HTTP control interface as 77.237.8.35:8089 (port is forwarded by UPNP) 2023-07-02 07:27:55.603 INFO ASYNCNET (Main): Registering server as 77.237.8.35:10309 (port is assumed to be open) 2023-07-02 07:27:56.195 ERROR ASYNCNET (Main): Server registration temporarily failed with code 500. Will try again later." The port numbers are ok, specific for each of the servers. Local Web GUI works ok, and shows propper servers configuration and it is possible to connect to the servers providing the IP and port. What can be the reason of this issue?

Since MOOSE is developing rapidly and I have the impression that I am not keeping up with its development, I would like to ask, in the case of preparing a new mission that is to simulate a large-scale conflict between the parties remaining in it, which functionalities should I consider in order to optimally use the possibilities of this Framework. I know for sure that it should be Ops.Chief for general CAP and GCI support, Functional.RAT to introduce an element of uncertainty, or Ops.NavyGroup for handling fleet activities. What about simulating the fight for the disputed areas, acquiring and re-acquiring them with the use of armored forces and supporting these troops with the help of CAS or BAI missions, possibly with the support of JTAC. To be clear, I'm familiar with scripting missions in DCS and have already done a few, but for a new mission I'd like to avoid scripting general phenomena at a detailed level as much as possible. I want to achieve the effect of "total war" in the style of a BMS campaign, but of course on a smaller scale, compatible with the capabilities of the DCS game engine. My request/question stems from the awareness that some of the functionalities that I have used in the missions created so far have in the meantime been extended to other functionalities in the MOOSE framework and I would like to avoid using outdated solutions as much as possible.

Also the lamps seems to be the problem for wider airplanes... null

Yesterday I was able to pay (not without issues) with the GPay, now today I can't see this as an option trying to make payment for another purchase. Is it something with me, or it's general issue?

You mean, there's something wrong with the FFB? I am asking as I the FFB joystick owner, not having yet this module.

After the recent update, the error as in the subject started to appear. No regular error message, just ordinary CTD without possibility to send the report. dcs.log

It works and You've achieved the 'Da Man!' scouting skill, mate

Sweet!! Sadly I can't mark Your post as solution, @cfrag

Seems that unfortunately this approach is most valid for today, so we have to wait until (if?) developers will perhaps one day will focus on this rather minor issue. Until then, I'll stay with the static ships.

I expect that and I am thinking about using the NAVYGROUP from the MOOSE that offers some kind of path finding functionality. On the other hand, I am affraid the coast to coast distances in the Suez Canal may be too small for the mechanism to navigate ships through it both ways with sufficient resolution and fluence. Even if I'll decide not to use the Ever Given, and stay with smaller ships.

Have anyone tried to prepare the script that would populate the Suez Canal with moving ships?

Mission sent.

Negative Sir...

Good for You. Yesterday colleague have had such situation and normal method did nothing, while editing the file sorted it out. This was the first time he used Kamov since the last OB patch. Same situation I've encountered after the last patch, which by the way Special Settings for all modules. The miz file indeed contains the Config directory where in subdirectory View I put customized Labels.lua file. This can be the reason?

@MotorEAST Hello Konstantin, any chance to get tips on this one? My ticked with the report for this issue was autoclosed, and still I struggle with meaningless binding descriptions.

It happened more than once, that the menu selection wasn't workning as expected.

Otherwise, go with this:

Nah, I'll rather wait for the proper FFB implementation. SimFFB is good when flying only one machine, what is not my case. But thanks for the interest anyway.

+1