S D

This is a long standing issue, if client joins after mission start some of the statics vanish. Hard to nail it down why, but easy to reproduce if you stack the deck with statics. But this is not a recent problem, has been a thing since before SC.

Super carrier test, with SAR/Tanker/Awacs overhead using MOOSE, for anyone not great with scripts. SCTesting.miz

I would have to agree with this, it has never made sense why the Kutz and AB are part of this. If this was DCS:Naval Assets, with much more to come fair enough. But its not... Justy stick to it being the super carrier and add those two assests to the core, its not as if they are going to have any advanced features anytime soon.

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/personal/server/?login=yes

If your just starting out in MOOSE, firstly welcome. Second, pop over and join the MOOSE Discord, there are alot more active users to help and much more content to search and find answers. https://discord.gg/v9RjWq

I would still like to know what the plans are re. launch/recovery cycles. Its great posting all these guides with procedure, but that procedure relies on the ship doing its thing properly also... So i ask again, what are the plans in place for launch/recovery cycles, related to actual ship movement? Will it generate the wind over deck required for flight ops? Currently unless your using something like MOOSE Airboss, 95% of mission ppl dont even bother to make the ship move (granted this is due also to other issues like deck sliding, especially in MP) but still.

Indeed, although the ships do not appear to be moving at all *cough* decksliding *cough*. Hoping to be wrong, but doesnt look like launch/recovery cycles (if there is such a thing implemented) include automated driving into the wind or speeding up... Again i would love to be wrong, but this video certainly doesnt allay my fears for this DLC. The animated cat shot looks great, dont get me wrong. But the rest of it to be looks like well placed statics, giving the sense of a launch cycle, with ships no moving and a calm sea state.

Sure i had the SR as the main unit, but i will check. Very possible i did that one wrong as it has a CC unit. Will check later, cheers for pointing me in a direction. :P

Anyone had any issues with SA-11's? If i set them as EW, they are active and respond to threats. But they do not appear to get activated by the IADS like the other sites. Just a general enquiry, it might well be something my end, just want to check.

Awesome job dude, just had a right good ol' time, going up against it. Still not started on the nodes and command centers, having too much fun fighting it. :P Keep up the good work.

Credit where credit is due, nice to see.

PLEASE ED!! Provide additional "under the hood" changes in the changelog, that have been fixed. So we can test this stuff easier.

Agreed Pikey Few more people need to realise how handicapped currently the scripting community actually are. There certainly isnt anything like the kind of communication there should be, to be honest, needs to be. For effecient feedback/testing of under the hood issues.

Oh yeah it handles a group with multiple SA-15's perfectly fine, what i am doing is multiple groups of multiple SA-15's :P Sorry should of explained that better. With that code i posted, i have 2 x groups of SA-15's, which contain 2 launcher sites plus resupply truck in each group. As i said it works perfectly well so far, i was just curious if there was another way of doing it. But dont worry about that, you crack on with the good work.

In terms of point defense, would the following be the best way to define multiple groups to a single defense? Or is there a way to define an array of groups. local sa15001 = rusIADS:getSAMSiteByGroupName('RUS_SAM SA-15 #001') local sa15002 = rusIADS:getSAMSiteByGroupName('RUS_SAM SA-15 #002') rusIADS:getSAMSiteByGroupName('RUS_SAM SA-10 #001'):setActAsEW(true):addPointDefence(sa15001) rusIADS:getSAMSiteByGroupName('RUS_SAM SA-10 #001'):setActAsEW(true):addPointDefence(sa15002)The above seems to work fine, just wondering if there is a more "elegant" way of doing it. I'll probably go down the road of a single group doing the defense, but while i''m messing around, why not.

Gotta push the limit :P Looking forward to connecting it all up to power and nodes. The static name bug currently in 2.5.6 is killing any motivation i have to start on it. Loving the script so far though, time to keep sending SEAD packages against it.

Before i start, just a big thanks for the work your putting into this. Noticed something while testing, seems to be related to the destruction of a unit. Get this error in the log once it happens and the debug stops outputting information for contacts and sam info. Not sure if it's breaking anything other than the debug. 2020-03-18 05:48:17.541 ERROR SCRIPTING: MIST|doScheduledFunctions|1019: Error in scheduled function: $1[string "C:\Users\**\AppData\Local\Temp\DCS.openbeta\/~mis00005F22.lua"]:2101: Unit doesn't existCan be observed on the following test mission, running latest skynet version. BlackSeaIADS.miz

Bumpy +1

I know ED have acknowledged AI fuel use. But this needs sorting... Bumpy +1

Bumpy... +1

Bumpy... +1

Bumpy... +1

Bumpy... +1

Bumpy.... +1

Bumpity... +1 Definatly need more interaction/communication with those community members using "under the bonnet" features. Also just looking at this place.... Perhaps a "Technical Wishlist" forums, so we can seperate needed wishlist items relating to API's or other back of house features, instead of wading through every man and his dog requesting a new aircraft.