Captain Orso

Thanks for answering, Harder. Firstly, it is completely illogical, if while programming PP2, I am on PP2 Sta8 and press STEP that it goes anywhere other than PP2 Sta2. Anything else is crazy and follows no rule. It went on jumping to PP1 until all stations under PP2 were programmed, each time forcing me to click PP2 yet again. The first time I did this, I didn't notice that it had changed the Program I was inputting without warning, and 3/4 of PP1 got overwritten. The Pre-Plans can only be logically organized to be above the stations, otherwise it means nothing. Either it is a plan or it is useless. Example 1 PP1 Sta2 Sta3 Sta7 Sta8 PP2 Sta2 Sta3 Sta7 Sta8 or Example 2 PP1 Sta2 Sta3 Sta7 Sta8 PP2 Sta2 Sta8 PP3 Sta3 Sta7 Anything else is gibberish. Otherwise you actually only have: Sta2A Sta2B Sta3A Sta3B Sta7A Sta7B Sta8A Sta8B Click on up to 4 before attacking. It only makes sense that if I have created a Program with Sta2, 3, 7, 8, that when I select that Program, all stations I programmed into that Program are activated for attack. How could it be otherwise? What other logic is there that I can't see?

With that title, I have the feeling, no one will take this seriously, but it is exactly true I setup a simple test mission. 8 Tanks on a runway, about 1000 feet apart from each other. 1 FA-18C with 8*GBU-38 Mission starts in active pause so that I can program the JDAMs in PP mode. Previous to running the test, I wrote down the exact coordinates to each and every tank xx° xx xx.xx . I start the mission and start programming the JDAMS. I checked each PP and station, twice, and all coordinates are correctly entered. Coordinates are also listed in the mission briefing. For Quantity I select all stations, 2, 3, 7, 8. Enter mission menu, select PP1 and enter the coordinates for targets 1 - 4, one for each of the four stations. Step through all stations an confirm correct entry. Select PP2 and enter coordinates to station 8, and press STEP Here is the first bug. Instead of stepping to PP2 Station 2, it steps to PP1 Station 2(!!). I click on PP2 and get PP2 Sta2 and continue entering LAT/LON/EL, but each time I press STEP it takes me back to PP1(!!) and I have to re-click PP2. Once all PP2 are entered, confirm their correctness. Select PP1 and un-pause. Upon reaching the valid drop zone, I press and hold the weapons release button until all four GBU-38's for PP1 are released. I observe the fall the the GBU's and see that targets 1, 6, 7, and 8 are hit(!!) Switch to PP2, turn about and drop the last four bombs, and targets 5, 6, 7, 8 are hit(!!). Cursing and derogatory remarks have been deleted. Mission and track fills attached. Cauc Kobuleti Test GBU-38 FA-18C PP 01.miz JDAM Test 02.trk

null Add to Kneeboard... OH SNAP!! smh so useless

Only if you know the key-combo. Busy work. Are you saying that ED is so incompetent, they cannot assign someone to fix this minor bit of coding, because they are so inundated with work, trying to keep the wheel turning on their out of control vehicle? I've worked in IT over 35 years, on both sides of the aisle (customer and manufacturer of IT products). The easiest way to make your customers believe you take their concerns seriously, is by showing that you take their concerns seriously. Sometimes this includes fixing those minor issues that are like a pebble in your shoe. It's tiny, but it will always bug you. You will always have to stop and take it out, and then ask yourself, why is a pebble always falling into my shoe. Why can't I have something to prevent that. YOU seem to think, "it's a tiny pebble, it can't be a big issue, because the customer can fix it with some effort and time", regardless of how much it bugs him. That is the stench of a rotting company. Customers will gladly jump to another provider who takes their issues seriously, even if the new provider is not as far along as the old provider, because in a year or three the new provider will maybe have fixed some of the issues the customer has, of which there is ZERO chance of the old provider fixing his issues, because "let the customer do it", he can simple dump the pebble out of his shoe once again, interrupting his intentions yet another time, aggravating him yet again, a process without end and no hope of finding one. God, I hope you don't have anything to do with customer-facing work.

This is actually a reasonable suggestion, although not entirely correct. It doesn't matter under which controller the empty bind is; just open it and start pressing buttons, when you hit a modifier button, it will appear in the modifier field. This is just time-consuming busy-work. If the MODIFIER PANEL were constructed like the CONTROLS assignment panel it would be much easier and quicker and conform to the already established standard. The idea is to make the lives of the users better, and not find excuses for doing nothing.

Thanks for the reasonable reply. I primarily use only two, sometimes three modifiers. But some aircraft I don't fly very often I've discovered that I've used some odd modifiers, and since I set them years ago, I had no idea what they were exactly and no way to find out easily. I discovered since then that I can locate the modifier.lua file for the aircraft and read it from there, but 1) that's a PITA while in-game, and 2) many players are OS-challenged, and this would make life easier for them, and 3) it just makes everything conform to the same paradigm.

WHAT BUTTON ON WHAT CONTROLLER IS Button1?

Well, please show me which controller/s is/are used for Button1 & 2, and which buttons on the controllers x

Go look at the modifier settings. You don't seem to know what they are.

When you open Options -> Controls -> Aircraft you have an input area that, if you have a key or button already defined, if you assert that key or button, the display will jump to the line on which that key or button is used, and it is highlighted. You can also see exactly on which device the button is, and whether there are modifiers. It would be useful to have the same functionality in the Modifier window, so that asserting a button or key jumps to the line where it is used, and the exact device is displayed.

In the script, you define what the ground object is. EG: scene.floor = sceneAPI:addModel("shelter_floor", 0,0,0); "Sherlter_floor" can be found here: c:\Program Files\Eagle Dynamics\DCS World OpenBeta\Bazar\World\Shapes\shelter_floor.edm. It's a simple model, 2d with no height. With the shelter, that is also defined as and edm and set on top. You could do that with any number of objects, but I've heard that making the scene menu too complex could affect performance of the rest of DCS - just what I've heard. Also, putting all kinds of 3d building all over is shooting quale with flak. You only ever have exactly one pov--unless you stand up and walk around your room and run into your walls o.O I've though about how one might do this though with the least effort and performance requirement. Setup a scene in SP like what you want in your scene menu. Stand in the middle and take screen shots in all directions. Here's the part I technically don't know how to do, but I know could be done. Create a wall model, simply a flat, vertical surface. Define these to be the four outer walls of your scene, so that you are basically in a box - a floor and four side walls. Now skin the walls with the screenshots you took. You may have to adjust for parallax, but I'm sure that should be possible in a good graphics editor like Photoshop or GIMP. Add some aircraft if you wish and off you go. -- Afterthought, instead of 4 walls, make a cylinder and stich the screenshots to a 360° panorama and use that to skin the inside of the cylinder

Hi Sedenion, I love this software. If it didn't exist, I would not lack for wanting it. Too bad there's no link to a Patreon in Github, or else... But... to quote Benjen Stark, "nothing ever said before the but counts"; well I think it does... but Elphaba has a point. What I am writing is only to give practical examples of how users think and why OMM is difficult for them and maybe some ideas. For me, the very first conundrum was, what is a "Software Context". I've tried to think of a more practical term to use, but Software Context does do the job, but only once you understand it. The Software Context is the set of information OMM uses to manage mods for a single game, program, or app, and is based firstly on the the installation location of the game, program, or app to be modded. EG: the standard installation location for DCS World OpenBeta is 'C:\Program Files\Eagle Dynamics\DCS World OpenBeta\'. When creating a Software Context, you select this installation location and give the Context a name, such as 'DCS-OpenBeta Mods'. That is enough to set the user on the right footing. Here's something which only has to do with the UI/UX. I know I've asked at least twice over the years, how I can remove an Installation Batch. Why? Because the simplest and most logical solution would be, on the main window, in the Installation Batch window on the right, to right-click on an batch name to select it and open a context menu with a few options, such as 'delete' or modify. This would be so easy to use and what every user in the world is accustomed to. I think this must possible, because in the Packages Library window, one can right click on a package to get a context menu with numerous options, from which to choose. Instead I have to remember that the way is through other menus, somewhere in the back... I still have to look for it, even now after having found it a half an hour ago - Edit -> Software Context properties... -> Installation Batches tab -> Installation Batches. This could have easily been a context menu on the main page in the Installation Batch window. It is the exact same thing. Worst case, if the tools used for programing the main page don't allow for two different sets of context menus, you could at least change the Modify button to open the Installation Batch manager window directly. You would see it right on the main page and never have to look for it. Thank you for all your time and effort. It has made enjoying DCS much more accessible.

But to give the SuperCarrier and all the airfields on every map really good eye candy would be ten thousand times easier than doing it over then entirety of every map. I'll even throw FARPs and FARP equipment and personnel, and it will still be nine thousand nine hundred and ninety eight times easier. The difference is, ED MUSST fix CA to be much better if the Dynamic Campaign is to be any good. There's no getting around it. Fixing the FPS aspect of CA is not necessary for the Dynamic Campaign at all, but will coast time, money, and resources, and it will work against the DC, because the DC needs to AI the units for it to work, and someone just taking over this or that unit and doing whatever with it, will mess with the AI's plan and control. CA basically is an RTS. It's just so poorly done as such that it is not recognizable as an RTS. Maybe they never even thought of it on that scale, but there it is anyway. I'm really hoping that DC will be a good solution, not just for campaigns, but also for single missions using the AI to enhance them. That's what I'm really hoping.

T(h)anks guys!! I wasn't even sure there'd be a solution

You can turn the "lollypops" off on the HUD, by going to the EWR page and un-boxing [HUD]. This however does not take the lollypops off the HMD display. Is it WAD that they don't also turn off on the HMD? Is there currently any way to get the lollypops off the HMD display in DCS? In Reality™? Many t(h)anks in advance

The difference is, that at 10k feet while flying at 450 kn you CANNOT see the lack of detail and fidelity on the ground. In helos it's different, but when your virtual feet are on the ground, looking in windows and seeing the LOD of the ground, roads, fields, everything has an entirely different meaning. Let me pose a question, why do you want ED to flesh-out CA to make it like an FPS? If you want to play an FPS, why don't you play something like ARMA 3 or similar - games which already have a far higher quality on the ground than DCS, and possibly better that DCS ever will? CA already has the basis for controlling and fighting ground troops from the F10 map. This is extremely rudimentary and buggy beyond what an alpha release ought to present. If you want to say that giving CA a modern and viable UI and function would be akin to creating a new game, then doing that--which ED has already indicated--PLUS making a worthy FPS out of it will be like creating TWO new games out of CA. I happen to agree that re-doing CA WILL be like creating a completely new game, but could be made into something that 1) could stand on its own and be worth playing without person flow aircraft, and 2) something which will give the air game a purpose beyond air battles for air battle's sake. I want to see CA be something fun and challenging to do, and not challenging from the aspect simply dealing with the UI.

That statement was purely about graphics. If you're going to make a FPS then make it at least worth while, and not akin to 1995's Jane's Longbow in ground graphics. You know what would suck? If they made every vehicle to specification and to run at level of detail as with the aircraft--which means you get to learn them all, just like with the aircraft--and then you look outside your Abrahams through the commander's hatch and everything looks like a vector graphic. If you compare the Caucasus map to the Syria map, or what we are seeing from the Egypt map, the Caucasus map is abysmal at best. But even the Syria map is a poor example of a FPS map. Anything worth doing, is worth doing right. I cannot think that ED will ever do it right with regards to CA, as long as CA includes being an FPS. Every cent spent on CA as an FPS, is a cent thrown out the window, and will only benefit 20 people to spend an hour per year doing it and they paid for CA already 10 years ago - my conjecture. Stop trying to be everything for everyone all at once, and you will have a fighting chance of achieving your goals.

Apparently a German Panzer actually did shoot down a Russian airplane once. It was during the Kurland battle and the Russians were constantly flying the exact same path to attack some nearby position, so the gunner knew exactly where the aircraft would fly and just had to time pulling the trigger at the right moment. But that was a once in a life-time kind of thing. There are always an enormous number of ways to break games. It will never be possible to eliminate them all, bc people will always find a way. I contend that ED will never make a good FPS of CA, bc to make a good FPS they would have to hire a development staff at least the size of what they have now doing aircraft and start rebuilding every map to be as good as something like one of the Battlefield games or COD. Hell, I would like to see ground detail and look anywhere near what BF3 offers and that's over 10 years old. IF ED managed to do that they would have--by a multitude--the larargest FPS map in gaming history, and the last time ED updated the Caucasus map, they dumbed down objects and textures to appease the Frame-Rate gods. And parallel they would have to redo every vehicle to give them something like the at the very minimum the same quality the Flaming Cliffs aircraft have, for a FPS, and that's never going to happen. If ED came anywhere near to what Eugen Systems did with Wargame Red Dragon (land only) without the arcadeiness - just the interface and control - that would be more than anyone could ever expect, and I think it would server everyone well. It would bring the ground-war into the game so that it would really mean something more that just offering targets for aircraft.

Editing is done now

Has this changed recently--within the last months or so--that the order of Advanced Waypoint Actions for setting up a tanker to start TACAN and orbit have to be in a specific order? I have a mission I've been updating for years to use for testing and training. I have a couple of tankers--KC-135 and an S-3B Tanker--setup for doing AAR training, which I haven't done for a while. Since I got a brand, spanking new Virpil MongoosT-50CM3 stick base specifically to make AAR easier--my personal hell--I started trying to do some AAR on my training mission, which always seemed to work before. Now I could not find any tankers on TACAN, and the orbits, instead of being nice long racetracks, would now just fly to the second waypoint and circle, but AAR would otherwise work. In ME, on the waypoint where tanker duties were to start the Advanced Waypoint Actions were: 1. Tanker -a ref 1. Refueling 2. Orbit(H = Hwpt = 10000feet) 3. Activate TACAN(BRG, 20X, "ARC" Unit.... After hours of trying changes and testing, I discovered that the actions MUST now be in a specific order: Tanker -a ref TACAN Orbit Refueling When did this change? I don't think it can have always been like this, because my mission used to work, unless I'm suffering from Early Onset Dementia, which I cannot absolutely exclude, especially if I have EOD

In Windows, <Winodws-button><S> to open the Search box, enter "event viewer", without the quotes, and press <Enter>, click [Open]. I doubt you will find anything of value there though. Check first in your anti-virus software. It should have a log for everything it does. If it blocked KBB you will find a definitive report there that it was blocked and why. You can always attempt to start KBB to generate a reaction from your anti-virus SW, if that is the cause. Then the report will be right near the top of the log.

Outstanding!! Now to just get Michael Palin as the pilot, and Graham Chapman as the co-pilot, and have a dialog play: Palin: Please, sir, I'd like for both engines to remain on during take-off. Chapman: Don't be such a ninny, you great gob spitting, teet-grasping, old goat. Palin: We're gong to crash and die, sir. Chapman: Oh, all right, you ninny. Cleese (off in the corner, sitting at a desk): And now, for something completely different...

One of my biggest worries is that an FP gamer might easily break an otherwise balanced mission. Humans always find a way to exploit things the engine doesn't understand or expect, thus making mission creation impossible. Generally these are just things a real human with just ONE Real-Life™ would never do. There has been much care and interest invested in AI aircraft over many years, and yet ED has only just recently fixed some major conceptual errors (AI pilots who ALWAYS fly with technical Perfection, no matter what, but use the same foolish maneuver over and over again). Why should I expect them to get the CA AI working anywhere near the level required to go toe-to-toe with a human player and all his shenanigans without many years of development. In my mind, making the AI human-opponent-resistant will cost huge sums in time and money, for something very few people will actually use.

I wonder if ED can also make the battlefield environment as realistic for CA as other FPS. I'm guessing that LOD might be able to deal with that, so that only CA units see such a level of detail, but then again, every helicopter and aircraft on the ground would have to be included. Would that be an issue? I mean Arma III does that basically on every server with 30 or 60 players, afaik, without being forced to their knees, so theoretically DCS ought to be able to do it too, but with an LOD break once aircraft get above a certain altitude. I think I'd sh*t myself if we ever had that LOD.

Thanks for the answers, guys. So CA should basically play exactly like Arma III or War Thunder, but realistic. But the AI should control everything, down to the last man, unless someone wants to directly control a unit. I haven't played any FPSes in years, but back in the day, none of them had any AI worth its weight in salt. Maybe today things are different, but idk. CA today feels more like a shooting gallery than ground combat simulation. AI cannot be allowed to move units, bc it would crash the game, so units are really just targets with no actual purpose. I think if the battlefield were populated realistically with units that actually act intelligently, wandering the battlegrounds as a rogue JTAC looking for lose targets will not really be viable. It will succumb to its real-world place on the battlefield, just one more cog in the machine. Besides, just because you can see a target, does not mean it is worthy of engaging it with CAS assets. The battlefield still drastically needs a battlefield commander--whether player or AI--who decides where to attack and when, and not the other way around.