Pixar

Thanks a lot for the answer.

Hello all, I was wondering if there is a possibility via Moose to limit the bank angle and climb angle of an AI aircraft. I am planning to develop a Formation and Tactical Turn Trainer, but I want the AI to fly a bit more smooth. I already had a look, but couldn't find anything. Thanks for your help.

Thank you so much for this amazing campaign! Do you have Patreon or something like that? I am happy to donate the same amount as I would have paid for your 3rd party DLC campaign. You invested so much time as a developer and I am sure many people would like to donate, even this is freeware.

I had this problem as well a while back. Then I figured that it was due to a data export script I was using. Data I/O will take CPU resources. Whenever I tried to accelerate time, while testing a mission, it was not working properly anymore. When I disabled the data export script, time acceleration was working properly.

That is really cool. I will check it out. Thanks a lot for the support!

Thanks a lot for taking the time to write an answer. Much appreciated. I give that a go and check it out. More or less and want to control the AI and tell it where to go whenever I like and the situation calls for that. Simple Example: A certain condition is met and I want the AI to turn 90 deg to the right. I would get the current ownship position, calculate an offset waypoint 90 deg to the right at a certain distance and tell the AI to go there, by using „switch to waypoint“. Therefore, I would need to be able to dynamically create that new offset waypoint, unless there is another way to do that.

Hi, Just wanted to ask you ME gurus if it is possible to dynamically change or create AI waypoints during a mission via scripting? During a running mission, I would like to dynamically change waypoint parameters (location, speed, altitude) or create a completely new one, and tell the AI to go there if necessary. Can I do that via lua scriting? Thanks a lot for your time! Pete

Thanks for the answer! Is there a preferred place to position just one base station for good tracking or doesn't it matter at all? Edit: And I just use the Pimax for DCS

Hey guys and Pimax owners, I am about to get myself a Pimax 8KX, after reading a lot and watching DCS videos. Have one question though. Can I work with just one Base Station to have good and flawless tracking or do I absolutely need two base stations? An answer would be much appreciated.

Hi all, I have been using the Streamdeck plugin for some time now and love it! After successfully creating the UFC for the A-10C, I started to build "pages" for the three radios VHF AM, VHF FM and UHF. While doing that, I ran into a problem and I hope someone can help me with this. Let's use the VHF FM Radio for example. I use a "Momentary Button/Display (Text)" to display the current frequency and that works well. Then, I setup 4 "Incremental Input (Rotary)" for the frequency selectors with the respective DCS ID's 153, 154, 155 and 156 [153] = "%0.2f", -- PTR-ANARC186-VHFFM-FREQ-1 (Frequency Selector the 1nd) [154] = "%0.2f", -- PTR-ANARC186-VHFFM-FREQ-2 (Frequency Selector the 2nd) [155] = "%0.2f", -- PTR-ANARC186-VHFFM-FREQ-3 (Frequency Selector the 3nd) [156] = "%0.2f", -- PTR-ANARC186-VHFFM-FREQ-4 (Frequency Selector the 4nd) The increment for selectors 1-3 is 0.1 in the range from 0 to 1.0, except for number 4, where the increment is 0.25. This is all properly set on the Streamdeck. However, when I push frequency selector 1 for example, the value goes up from 0.0 to 0.1, but on the second press it strangely kinda ramps up to 0.4 and on another press it ramps up to 0.0 again, because I allow cycling to the beginning. So a button press is not increasing the value by the specified number. Does anyone know what could cause this issue? Thanks in advance! SOLVED: It looks as if I cannot use "Incremental Input (Rotary)" here. If I use momentary buttons to increase and decreas the "rotation" it works.

Well, it depends right. If you track in IR and have a moving bright contrast in the trees, you could track it. Also if it stops and you still see the bright heat signature and contrast of that vehicle. DCS is probably not simulating that though. It is tracking, because the location is always known.

@launchedsquid: I use manual bombing. If the enemy is spoofing the gps or my laser has a hickup, I want to be able to deliver manually ;) @Vanguard: The point track is a pure optical tracking mode. So if the pod is masked or the target is driving behind a building or another object, the pod is using a prediction algorithm for the target position, using the velocity vector, before the target was masked. However, that only works for up to 10-15 seconds. After that, the pod would drop out of point track, if it is not picking up the target visually again. So if a target it going in one direction, but then becomes masked by the aircraft structure or another object and is changing direction, the chance that the pod will automatically pick up the target again is very low. In DCS, the target position is known all the time and is also always perfect. Therefore, the pod works better than in real life and sometimes worse ;)

Yes, I modified the original line in the default.lua file. Yes, I of course use -- for comments ;) However, I added a new line with the code LeCuvier posted and that did the trick. Now I have a properly working launchbar switch. :) Thanks a lot guys!

Thanks for the answer!

Hi, I have question with respect to the FLIR tracking modes. As you probably know, the Area Track and Point Track of the TGP/FLIR are optical tracking modes. Do you know if that is simulated by DCS? The reason I am asking is that I don't see the value of using Area Track at the moment, especially since you can't move around the crosshair while in that mode, which I find very strange. Of course you can use the offset, but also that behaviour feels a little off and awkward. In real life there is the Stabilized Track, which is an INR mode, subject to drifting and inaccuracies, also for the target height information. Usually, in order to get better and accurate data, the pilot would switch to Area Track. This is a pure optical tracking mode, where the picture infomation is evaluated and the system will get more accurate data. Point Track is usually used for moving targets, and is also a pure optical tracking mode, where the picture is evaluated. However, you could also use this mode on a static target. For example if you want to target a specific point of a building, like a window, chimney etc. This mode provides much better height information for this target location. It is also good to use on static targets, if you have alot of movement arount the target and you don't want the Area Track to be confused by that. In this case you would also you Point Track on a static object. However, I don't think that DCS is simulating real optical tracking and the target data is probably always correct. Am I right? If this is the case, I don't see the benefit between Stabilized Track (INR) and Area Track, as both would give the same target information. In the end it is in there for completeness and I highly appreciate that. But using Stabilized Track or Area track will not give different results. Only the procedure is different and a little strange in Area Track. Therefore, I can imagine a lot of virtual pilots will stick to Stabilized Track and will not use Area Track for targeting static objects.