DHesquire

Ahh OK I can sort of see that - that's why I wasn't sure whether to put it in features or bugs. Seems too 'big' to be an accident. I've delved and found a really old post saying about stuff being in the MIZ file for the A10, but that's not really sustainable and surely too old now? Like you say, probably pre-dates DCS 2.5. My first bit was that, yes - had quite a paragraph laid out, added the pic, posted and only the pic came out...raging! I hadn't really noticed at first, but surely it should have come with A10C II..?

Speaking of bugs, why when posting has it ONLY posted the picture rather than the text? Not typing it all out again - basically, why is this missing for the A10C/II when it's on every other aircraft? Is it a bug? Seems too big/obvious for that, surely? What's the deal?

Hi folks, Just writing to check that the Waypoint Properties PDF that's kicking around is still current? I can't get AAR areas to show despite OL1 being selected, the AAR Zone set against the aircraft options, and the waypoint options having WP_Type AAR. It also mentioned recognised threats and further implementations being added - all I've noticed is that the option for Bullseye waypoint has disappeared, so if that has sneaked-in as a change, what else has? Cheers

Test fly of a mission whilst building one. Returned from editor after being shot down. Scrolled and dragged map to a SAM unit, clicked to edit, nothing happened. Clicked repeatedly, then on other units, could not interact with units on the map (but could mouse scroll and move view). Tried clicking the buttons on the left, which go through click animation/colour change, but no action. Same then with X and Exit buttons - I get the 'do you want to save changes' prompt, which I answer (none work) and the box just closes and nothing happens. Alt + F4 brings up the exit question and is the only interaction that works. Logs:

I don't think so - if there is I certainly haven't found it. One for @NineLine to consider/feedback

Ahh the ol' metashader/fxo folders, thanks, forgot about those. Fixed after deleting them

As title - Bulker HANDY WIND textures are just the green digicam since yesterday's update

I've noticed that too - it seems the scaling is done relative to the screen space rather than the map it overlays, so it stays a fixed size on your screen but obvs as you zoom out it becomes (appears) 'bigger' relative to the map and its neighbours

Cue the unnecessary hype grenade being dropped at the mention of 'Gripen' in the text around the video Nice to see the professional/MCS side going well - I guess we have that to thank for playing a big part in the fidelity of the US aircraft we have. I'm sure as much of it will make its way over to DCS as possible, no matter how long that will take

Thank you for the update, @NineLine! If even just the basic Copy/Paste could be done for map markers, that'd be a massive help. Ability to have them (and IP objects, maybe?) as compatible parts of Static Templates would be a bigger bonus! I've managed to get around it by cracking the template's MIZ file open, and copying the [drawings] section from my into the MIZ of the flyable missions themselves. Obviously this isn't ideal long-term as it has corrupted entire mission files for me before, but it's worked as an interim solution ...just awaiting CombatFlite to be updated to 'merge' functionality (pull & push markers to/from mission editor)

Can these be exported to a template/copied between missions in some way? I've got FIR boundaries mapped out and some 'persistent' markers for a campaign, but the usual static template and copy/paste doesn't work

Owing to recent life events costing me my career, a big part of me is wanting to get into DCS module development and starting with something like the Grob G115E/D2, to give us a western equivalent (ish) to the Yak-52 and balance out a lead-in flight training pathway for the sim (no turboprops but we've got L-39 and C-101...RIP Hawk...). It's either that or map/terrain development, which would suit my skillset more, but a part of me wants to learn something new at the same time. The thing is, I know √FA about how any of this stuff works, so I guess I'm fishing for expectations to confirm/deny my observations and get some insight into what it really takes other than the blood, sweat, and tears to make a module. Brain dump inbound: To an outsider, even 'simple' modules take multiple years to complete A 3D model is comparatively the easy bit...the systems coding takes the longest However, I understand the longest wait is down to 'licensing'...what does that even mean? Immediate, thoughtless impression is it's paying for the OEM to send you their actual CAD files for the airframe as the 3D model...but that can't be true because otherwise why would devs be laser scanning etc? I presume instead it's the legalese BS around copyright, so that if you 3D scan and sell a module, the OEM doesn't come back and sue you for copying their aircraft's design (even though it's free marketing etc...) Said licensing above, if you can get it, presumably costs millions? And the OEM takes a cut of the already marginal profits etc. How essential is it really when we're sat here with our handful of modules, whilst there may or may not be other platforms out there, potentially with initials like WT or maybe something like that, with tens of fully laser scanned aircraft like Phantoms, Jags, and Buccaneers we could only dream of within this decade. Are they just a lawsuit waiting to happen and ED/RB/HB are chuckling away at them over the fence? Or is the model for DCS platform maybe 'too' safe, at the cost of being dynamic and making progress? The SDK is basically non-existent - seems like to get your hands on it you presumably buy it off ED? Most community mods are AI only, and the few that aren't complain about what potential they would have if only they had proper access to development tools. Why are the cards are held so close to their chest? The only reason I can make sense of is preserving the perception of the sim/platform, and sort of forcing a base-level quality. Anyone familiar with a recently released civilian-oriented whole-Earth platform will be familiar with the copious amounts of dreck that have come from a so-called 'hYpE tRaIn' combined with having an open SDK...devs doing a model-flip to make a quick buck and exploit new naive players. None of us want 10x different, 50-polygon Eurofighters for $4.99-$9.99 clogging up the store and riding on the F15's flight model/avionics etc. The current system, I presume, requires approval to even start production, so that there's a good guarantee that you'll end up with a study-level product at the end. But surely there's a balance to be struck which still requires approval for formal modules but gives more support to the outstanding capabilities surrounding us in the community, and makes module production more dynamic to help the entirety of DCS grow? Numerous promising startups have been made...but fail into obscurity without much word (Coretex? IRIS? IRIS even have a G115E floating around but I guess that'll never make it over here now...). VEAO seemed like slightly different circumstances, but still feeds the scepticism about working with ED to make things official and makes me wonder what potential is being lost behind the scenes. What isn't drawing people into making content for DCS? Or at least, what's drawing them in and then pushing them away before completion? Lots of companies have excellent models for other sims that would be fantastic additions to the DCS ecosystem (some are also DCS developers...). The other train of thought is that model aside, the DCS platform for systems coding etc is so radically different that it's not worth anyone's while to change their workflows to what would be basically redoing the same aircraft from the ground up. What would obvs sound like a straight drag-and-drop conversion, plus a bit of tidying-up, actually becomes years of work redoing what you've already done, just a different way. I totally understand that, and it would get me making the same decisions if I had to continue development and support for the other platform...as well as getting wound up by the constant "is it done yet?" and "pfft it's just a simple drag and drop what's taking you so long" The other similar thought here is the fact that most of us live in OpenBeta as that's where the features are - as a developer, particularly a small one, I can imagine there will be frustrations of constantly falling behind the curve of the base platform's development? Every time you get 95% complete whoops another x.y update which entirely changes the way a significant portion of the game works and you have to start again from scratch...you get 95% of the way there then...you get the picture. As a small developer the constant moving of goalposts would make it near impossible to get anywhere...leading to community frustration from those who don't understand, and probably the termination of the module In a similar vein to the above, MB-339 was a fantastic community module that got green lit, but I'm sure I read that it's had to be started again from the ground up. T-45C would be a perfect integration/addition given we have Supercarrier getting loads of love and attention - leaves me wondering again how the green-lighting/onboarding process goes (what the prerequisites are etc) and what would make people say yes/no. This is NOT to become a bashing session - about ED or indeed any other developer or platform. I'm genuinely after proper discussion and honest insight about the major hurdles to full DCS module development, what it takes to overcome them, and I guess to develop an answer the question is it worth even starting? Especially when it's quoted that a full-fidelity module costs ~£1m+ per year to produce I guess I'm just trying to take some ownership of actually starting something, rather than just adding yet another gimme G115E & G120TP plz to the condemned ranks of unanswered wishlist posts...'if you want it that badly, do it yourself' etc. etc. Thanks for taking the time to read - hopefully there will be some 2p's to throw in

Anyone got the Hawk template around still, they'd be willing to send? Original topic and hosting has gone

Yes exactly - to pull the built in kneeboard across would be a good function. Tbf that hadn't even crossed my mind - I'll look into what sorts of things will be needed and see where we go I hadn't seen that before, that's awesome! Albeit Android only

I'm used to doing my civvy flying with an iPad-based (other tablets are available) moving map, and since doing so have also got my DCS kneeboards on there too (shoutout to my personal favourite kneeboard solutions by @Minsky and @pokeraccio - awesome layouts and concise info!). These are only as JPEGs on my OneDrive, but it always gets me wondering about the viability of a proper companion app for DCS. Kind of like merging CombatFlite with the built in kneeboards, the F10 map, and/or maybe being able to output an MFD/HUD of your choosing. Anyone who's used Garmin Pilot, as an example, should get the vague idea of what I'm on about (moving map, synthetic vision, checklists, planning features, TCAS/ADS-B input). Not sure if this is the right place for the topic so feel free to move, but interested in people's thoughts. Might even have a bash myself although mobile apps aren't my forte (I despise code work!)

Possibly already in the works, or a long-term goal, but a 'proper' weather modifying interface with spot pressures and isobars, precipitation, thunder, and cloud layers as selectable layers to view. This would have better control of pressure zones like CombatFlite does (placeable and adjustable, rather than random), with wider parameters and maybe manipulable isobars? I often automatically go to Windy to get some semblance of real world weather into missions, but as you can see today systems are way bigger than 540NM and not just elliptical. (Windy: Dededo weather forecast)

Major +1 for this! My understanding was CJTF's were a catch-all for every livery, so they pull in every available livery, vehicle, and aircraft and make them assignable to Blu/Red. It seems at the moment that it only has the aircraft's default livery, and then any you've downloaded that don't have a country written in the LUA (so it's available to all anyway). I've not seen anything about the LUA country codes for CJTFs, but didn't think we'd need them anyway as it seems the majority of us expect the above behaviour. If it's not fixed to be what we've interpreted them to be, can someone clarify what the actual function is?

Been trying to get here to check for updates over the course of the past 12h or so, and it's a dead site for me? Anyone else?

Missing most of my hair and about 8 hours of my day, trawling my browsing history instead of looking in the mods forum...but I found what I was on about...I knew I wasn't going mad! One of those things where people invest so much time into this sort of thing, to the point where it almost becomes a shame when it's implemented by default. Maybe devs can reach out to the authors of this sort of thing for some sort of onboarding deal to get decent stuff like this into the base sim? Similar to MB-339 only a deal to get it in as base content rather than a separate module etc. Either way:

Well hopefully the teased IADS changes will also bring these sorts of expansions/improvements as part of the associated platform update. We've been waiting on the addition of the SA-5 for years too, which I wasn't too bothered about until OSINTing real-world SAM placements for accurate missions, and discovering 50% or so are SA-5's I need to make SA-2's until it arrives HighDigitSAMs do good stuff for modernising a few systems - it'd be nice to have S-400/S-500 or even just updates to the more potent long-range systems. I suspect lack of declassified data will be the issue there, though. That, and the usual bleating about balance of power where "most of our aircraft are pre-2000's so that's where the focus should be"...different conversation though! I haven't been around for a while but I could swear I saw in passing that someone recently released a mod that was basically what I posted, and more? Like a SAM sites object/scenery pack or something? Also had generators and barbed wire etc but also some new radars. Can't find it now might have been a WIP article somewhere obscure and I'm not sure if the radars worked but it's promising

Loads of 'static' (but animated) P-35 BAR LOCK objects at airfields, but none placeable as EWR's in the editor. Model is clearly already there in the sim - I'd have thought it just needs merging with the similar EWR code given to the P-19 and other existing assets? Perhaps a 'golf ball' object that could be user configurable in the ME as to its range/power? Or a few generic antenna shapes, also potentially user configurable. Would go well with the IADS module

As titled, the default aggressor skins don't show when you place a USAF Aggressors (AUSAF) F16 on the map in ME. Kinda defeats the object if they're only available to USA, as friendly fire on our server isn't tolerated Quick fix rolled out to the livery LUAs (pretty please )?

Thank you for that, nice insight I for one am not fussed about P2P textures, but server-side would be huge for sure. Hadn't even thought about it being for more than just the aircraft. Obviously the security implications are big with running server code but they always will be in this day and age. At least it's being considered - I guess I just add a 'clear ground texture' FARP to the wishlist

Perhaps, but at least a LUA I can include in the miz file and it's plug-and-play - a desert FARP texture everyone needs to download and install individually (for now...) No worries, thanks all

Is there a way to set the height of a static object? I'd like to set the height of a standard FARP to just drop by a couple of ft into the terrain in order to hide the grass and just leave the T and H's exposed (horrible green FARP in a desert and I don't want the ache of mods on the server etc etc). I thought there'd surely be a lua where you can just setObjectHeight(-5) or something but can't find it anywhere