Aarnoman

Is this reported yet?

Version: DCS 2.7.9.18080 (OpenBeta) Bug: AI settings are ignored (other settings may also be affected, but only interception range and restrict target have been tested in this scenario). See example mission - Two redfor groups, with Restrict Target "Engage ground units only" and Interception range "0%" set, will engage a bluefor helicopter despite these settings. Expected behaviour: AI should adhere to AI settings, and not engage the bluefor unit (either setting individually should prevent the redfor AI from engaging the helicopter). Extra notes: Having extra waypoints/enabling the setting on a different waypoint does not resolve this bug. RestrictTargetROEbroken.miz

No roadmap this year.

Like it or not expect people to also give feedback that 2 years is a long time to wait for a fix for something that has been reported as a day 1 ommision.

Wow, we are nearly 2 years post launch, had wands teased nearly a year ago, and still are nowhere near a public release. This is very disappointing progress, and it does feel like the supercarrier has become an afterthought with soon to be three new module releases since. I'm honestly very disappointed with the slow progress on the SC for all listed features. I don't think 2 years off virtually no progress is reasonable.

+1

While the argument as a whole is valid, and I agree with it in parts, bear in mind that these community mods are likely still ahead of where DCS voice chat will be in 5 years time, given its current rate of development. It's quite clear you haven't used any of these tools yet, hence your formulation of the argument. I would suggest playing around with them for a bit, and then reevaluating your position. SRS, rather than a "community stop-gap", has long since evolved into the most feature rich and intuitive way to communicate in DCS. To say it's light years ahead of the native voice chat is an understatement, it's in a complete league of its own currently.

Somewhere between DCS 2.5 and 2.7, the marker smoke in DCS has had a major change that made it somewhat ridiculous - currently it towers up to 165 meters high, as shown here: Having this unnaturally tall, fast moving smoke causes a range of both gameplay and immersion issues, as it looks bad, interferes with our ability to judge size/altitude, and easily obscures the target area due to its large plume. I have worked on creating a performance friendly, more realistic looking alternative to this smoke with the hope of integrating it into DCS core. One of the goals was to retain long distance spotting ability (so smoke markers can still be spotted at 5nm for target aquistion) while looking good at any distance, and not being ludicrously large. Here is the result: I have been in discussions with NineLine to have this integrated in DCS as it requires only a change in one file and has no negative consequences/effects to any other particle effects, but unfortunately there seems to be next to no interest from ED for this: As a result, I am releasing this to the community. If you enjoy this improved smoke, consider asking ED/the community managers for whether it can be reconsidered for inclusion into DCS core. Installation instructions: 1) Replace [DCS installation directory]\Bazar\ParticleEffects\effects\SmokeMarker.lua with the file attached. Issues: This mod will currently break integrity check. If you would like to use it on integrity check enabled servers, consider asking the community managers nicely for inclusion in DCS core. SmokeMarker.lua

As a longstanding strong proponent of voice communication in games, and with a long history of using voice communications including SRS, TFAR (Arma), and DCS native voice chat, I have decided to create the following list of obstacles that I think will need to be addressed for widespread community adoption of the native DCS voice chat. With the 2.7.9 update, we have taken a significant step in the right direction, but we still have quite a long way to go. The following points are based on my personal thoughts and experiences, discussions with other discord users, and community comments including server owners in the wake of the recent release of the improved voice chat. All discussion following referencing "voice chat" will be referring specifically to the native voice chat implementation in DCS. Simplicity in setup One common argument that has come up repeatedly is that more options are better, and that options of room mode/radio mode/etc should be customizable by the end user. I want to address this argument first, as I have seen it used commonly to derail discussions about further points outlined below. Voice chat first and foremost relies on sufficient community adoption. If not many people use it, it quickly loses its purpose, as less and less users will go through the trouble of setting it up to work for them. This is something we see currently - very few servers have voice chat enabled, as other more powerful and intuitive options such as SRS are available. Simplicity and intuitiveness mean the following to me in the context of voice chat: Minimal steps should be required by the user to set up and enable voice chat. Voice chat should be enabled by default (once the system is mature enough). PTT keys should be easily bindable by the user. On rooms and radio frequencies In the current implementation of voice chat, there are two modes - room mode, acting like a discord room, and radio mode, where you transmit on in game selected radio frequencies (as picked in the plane). There are a few issues with this, specifically the following: By default, once loaded into a plane, the user remains in room mode. Most users are not even aware that you have to manually switch to radio mode to transmit on selected frequencies. From discord discussion including input from @Ciribob (SRS creator), a general consensus as follows was reached: Both room and PTT mode have a purpose in context of DCS. Room mode should be available for voice discussion restricted to users selected side while the user is in the lobby, spectating, or using the mission planner - effectively any time not loaded into a plane. Once the user loads into a plane, voice chat should immediately and automatically be moved from room mode to PTT/radio mode, where in game selected frequencies are used. Once loaded into a plane, room mode should be unavailable. This ties in with the earlier point on simplicity and intuitiveness, as most users expect to use the in-game selected frequencies to communicate. This creates the best of both worlds - a room mode available for planning/discussion akin to a briefing room prior to flight, and use of the planes native radios for voice communication once loaded in game. This mirrors real life (-> intuitive) as well as how the community uses SRS to communicate once loaded into a plane. It also provides the ability to brief/discuss/plan with your side before boarding a plane, allowing for coordination that is not possible using SRS currently, and has been requested by community members a number of times in the past. The reason that room/PTT radio mode should NOT be an end user options is as follows: Room/radio users are not able to communicate with each other, so by allowing this options selectable it will create barriers for entry, as the user may not be aware of which voice chat mode they should be in for a given server. This leads to confusion, which may put users - particularly new users - off from using voice chat altogether, leading to decreased use. This again ties in with the ethos from earlier - it requires widespread adoption to be successful. Quality of life features A number of quality of life additions are needed to the current implementation of voice chat to make its use easier and more immersive. Clear aural feedback that the user is transmitting. This means having "radio clicks" when engaging/disengaging the PTT buttons. Currently, voice chat does not have this. Radio effect to received voice chat - already planned, but will add to the authenticity. SRS is an excellent example of how this can be done. Ideally, some option (e.g. minimal/realistic) to the level of distortion should be selectable, to aid users with existing hearing impairment/foreign language users/etc. Default keybinds for all modules, with option to override these per module. One option for doing this would be as follows: Default Radio 1->9 PTT keybinds in voice chat keybinds under its own category. This by default applies to every module in DCS. In the specials tab, for every module have a checkbox (default disabled) for "Use custom Voice Chat PTT buttons". For every module, have a keybind section for "Custom voice chat PTT". This can then be bound on a per module basis. Now, the user can easily create a default profile for most modules using the specific general voice chat keybinds, and also have per module keybinds for ones where a different profile is desired, that can be enabled for that module specifically using the options -> special -> [module] tab. Other barriers to community implementation With SRS now long established as the preferred community voice chat tool for DCS, a number of additional hurdles exist for DCS native voice chat to overcome to see it receive widespread server and community adoption. The previously discussed points are all important influences, but a number of additional hurdles also exist: Voice chat requires a degree of API access for mod developers. Specifically, established tools such as ATIS, Overlordbot and Hound ELINT are not able to be integrated with voice chat currently, leading to decreased server adoption in lieu of SRS, therefore hampering community uptake. Either native alternatives to these tools would have to be developed by ED, or voice chat API access would need to be allowed for mod developers to allow the integration of these tools with DCS voice chat. External voice chat access for GCI/AWACS. This means being able to connect to a servers voice chat without being in a plane, to allow for users (e.g. of LotATC) to act as a GCI/AWACS for fellow players. An alternative would be to have a dedicated slot(s) available in mission for users to join as GCI/AWACS, with access to the in game radio. This post is intended as a summation of the most integral features needed for widespread community adoption. Simplicity, intuitiveness, and community support are needed for DCS voice chat to be successful. SRS servers as an excellent template of how the community intends to use voice chat, and many useful lessons can be learned from observing how the community currently uses it. DCS voice chat has a number of advantages to SRS, the most significant of these being the lack of setup required to get it working in the first place. Additionally, by integrating the room mode for briefing/mission planning/spectating and exclusively forcing PTT/radio mode while in a plane, DCS voice chat will have a range of features not currently available in SRS, assisting in its adoption. Ultimately, voice chat needs to be simple to set up, intuitive to use, yet remain powerful and capable like its predecessor SRS - it requires server and community adoption to be successful, as voice chat without uptake loses its purpose. I wish the DCS developers all the best, as there is huge potential in transforming the DCS experience using voice chat, particularly if largely adopted by the community.

+1

Working fine for me. Are you sure you are not inputting/using correctly?

Yoyo is fine by me, though feel free to use my DCS handle "Yoyo (Aarnoman)" if you really want to credit. I'm happy for people to use it without credit as well, but having a link to the download in case someone else may want to use it would be welcome Thanks again and good luck with the mission, please do send me a link when it is published, would love to fly it.

Actually, figured it out. Please see the attached file on this post. Steps to integrate it with an existing mission are as follows: 1) Locate the .miz that you want the template drawings added (Note, the mission should be set in the Syria map for this to work correctly). Create a backup of this .miz file first. 2) Open the .miz through 7zip (available here: https://www.7-zip.org/download.html). This is achieved by right clicking on the .miz -> 7zip -> open archive. You should see this: 3) Right click on "mission" and select open. I recommend opening it in notepad++ (available here: https://notepad-plus-plus.org/downloads/ ) 4) Press Ctrl+F and search for "drawing". This should find a line that starts with ["drawing"] = { We will be replacing this entire block of code with the factions template attached. 5) Replace everything in this code block (the drawing code block) with the information from the attached text file. (From ["drawings"] to -- end of ["drawings"] ) If using notepad++, this can be easily achieved by right clicking on the line starting with ["drawing"], clicking "Begin/End select", then Ctrl+F for "Drawing" to find the end of the code block (the line with "-- end of ["drawings"]") and right clicking -> Begin/End select. You can then delete this segment, and paste in the new ["drawing"] block from the attached text file. 6) Once edited, press Ctrl+A to select all text in the file, and Ctrl+C to copy it. 7) In 7Zip, reselect the mission file, and right click -> edit (alternatively, press F4 when the mission file is selected). 8). The file should now open in notepad. Press Ctrl+A to select it all, and press backspace to clear the file. Now, press Ctrl+V to paste the content of the edited mission file we created in notepad++ earlier. 9) Press Ctrl+S (Save). 10) Close both notepad++ and notepad. 11) When refocusing on the 7zip window, there should now be a prompt that "File 'mission' was modified". Press OK on this prompt. 12) Congratulations, the drawings have now been added to the mission. You can now open the mission as normal in the DCS mission editor, and the drawings should be available. To view it in the mission, you must check the "Author" layer in the mission editor drawing section. If you have any issues with this, please let me know, I will try and assist further. Good luck with your campaign! YoyoSyriaFactionsTemplateIntegration.txt

I think this might be possible with some file trickery, as .miz files are just zip files. I will have to look into it, wont be able to until the end of the week unfortunately. Will update and provide a guide if it is possible then though. Thanks

+1

I think you missed my whole point that DCS as a whole is earning revenue, as is the case for all new third party product releases.

+1, very good suggestion that I would like to see implemented also.

Not really, considering DCS as a whole is a product, and will continue to generate revenue from already released modules. Also, any third party releases also generate income for ED. We have reached a point where we have many great modules to choose from, but the platform/world/core itself is showing its age. This has now become the most important thing for ED to work on, as it makes any module purchase more enticing for users. It seems like ED is on the same page on that, as seen by the focus on improving weather/AI flight model/FLIR/ground assets/mission editor enhancements lately. Dynamic campaign and better AI/IADS/ground unit damage model/performance enhancements through multicore/Vulkan are now some of the most important things worked on for the platform.

https://www.inherentresolve.mil/Releases/Strike-Releases/ Have fun.

+1, really good suggestion and something I have been hoping for a native implementation for. Also +1 on the related suggestion for automatically filled Nineline sheet as @Lace mentioned above. I think this feature would benefit both non-VR and VR users significantly. VR users likely moreso as we can't use a irl notepad for this purpose.

Faction Map based on July 2016 battle positions in Syria - intended for use by Mission Editors, either to aid in crafting semi-realistic missions or for inspiration. Note that many of the borders are around defensible terrain, or of areas with strategic value. These borders have been carefully correlated through use of overlays, in game geographic and man made features, and coordinates to ensure a high degree of accuracy. Most borders were manually adjusted to best fit with the representation in DCS (e.g. matching border walls, streams, or highways used as logical borders when appropriate). The borders are by default only visible in the mission editor, but can also be shown to coalition by moving the relevant areas to the respective coalition side under the 'draw' section of the mission editor. Sources used in the creation of this conflict map: OpenStreetMap Wikipedia Conflict Map Download: Download Link (Click here) Wanting to integrate this into an existing mission? Follow the instructions here

If you haven't already, make sure window auto tune is enabled:

I think he is talking about ground AI units. I agree with OP that it would be nice to have most ground AI units not use tracers (e.g. infantry) or use tracers more sparingly (e.g. humvee every 5th round). Currently every ground battle looks straight out of star wars. On an unrelated note please make ground hits from low calibre weapons smaller instead of the generic 30mm hit effect.

I can do you one better - here is a picture of Deir ez-Zor airport in DCS, with a comparison photo to google earth:

I'm not sure what the glitch is meant to be from the video? Any chance you can explain further/provide a more clear demonstration?