void68

Well, I have no real additional code here, I did an "execute script file" mist.lua and "execute script" with the code under triggers action. Gruppe (ground unit group to spawn) and Zone (triggerzone) were both defined. I don't quite understand as Isn't that exactly what I wrote and what it should be: mist.respawnInZone('Gruppe','Zone')? Gruppe and Zone are valid. I even put a space at the approbiate places around the comma like in the wiki, no change. Even stranger thing is that after I copied/pasted the different codes from the wiki it suddenly worked - despite they look exactly like my input - the parameters between {} and the nil, 4000 weren't the problem as I deleted them and still the script works. SA2 is the name of both the group and the zone, not the best choice I know, but it was just for testing purpose. Well, I don't know why it does work now and did not before. Thanks for help nontheless.

I used mist.respawnInZone('Gruppe','Zone') and it comes up with with error. What am I doing wrong?

thanks guys, lots of help to prevent future issues

Thanks, I always planned to use the Command Injector but was too lazy. I didn't mention my editing first because I thought that adding a few lines in the .lua (like I did hundreds of times before - and I still wonder what might have gone wrong) could have broken the commands, but not that the devices were put to sort of offline. I will walk through Quaggles' Command Injector then. Still I wonder what will happen if DCS adds some required new code to the default.lua that the backup does not have. That's why I went from just replacing to editing / adding lines to it.

Thanks so far. What helped: After a DCS repair I got my default.lua back and it worked. Before I had copied my individual .lua entries back into the default.lua from the after-update DCS-backuped default.lua like I have to do after each update, these additions enable keybindings for ejection arm lever, pneu/elec elevation and different speed settings for CRS and HDG knobs on the HSI (again thanks to @LeCuvier for helping me with these two years ago). Perhaps something went wrong with the copy+paste, despite I went on with extreme caution and my experience is over two years... when I tried it 2nd time it worked again. DCS doing DCS things... or I had a bad moment. Ah, damn, right... there they are. Thanks for pointing me to them. They are intact I just hadn't noticed them there. I was in real stress as I lost my config 1h before a big MP game. Well, 99% is working again.

I reinstalled the default.lua and at least they respond again. Don't know why, after another edit it still works. Now my default settings like MFDs are empty. They had a default binding before (MFD button #1 on #1 etc) and I didn't save them - as they were installed after joystick / MFD installation. DCS put some default over it, like on the HOTAS switches. They are all gone. How to get the default back?

All controllers are "dark", they lost all keybindings and I can't neither load my profiles nor set new keybindings. They are just "dead". Other models work, it's just the F-16. Did a DCS repair, no change. Did restarts, reboots, the usual stuff. How to get my devices work in the F-16 again.

I can't login and have to play offline - that happened the last 2 weeks occasionally. New is "you have to enter a local password" and it says it does not match (wrong, it's the same) and don't even let me access any module. Can we have an urgent fix? What's going on since last patch? edit: did a DCS-repair, did a reboot, changed my password just to be safe: no change! No login, no access to neither modules (just the standard free ones). edit2: added this to \Windows\System32\drivers\etc\hosts now it works. 185.195.197.4 api.digitalcombatsimulator.com

Thanks to you both. My cockpit is already cramped as I put it onto a motion rig and everything has to be fixed, so no mouse, just a trackball (bolted down to an alu extrusion) on the right. Almost impossible to mount something between my legs neither on the left side (left F-16 console is packed with needed switches). Well, it might be a workaround for others, I just still wonder why no one else wants mouse movement possibility on the HOTAS with all these possibilities. I recall from my memory that mouse emulation by stick was possible even with the old 1. gen Cougar HOTAS in the 2000's. But Quaggles might be a good idea, whereas I don't like to start just another background program for a simple task DCS could solve with a minimum of corrected coding (already need a handful for DCS: rig program, 2x immersive progs for bassshakers, motion compensation, VR prog, joystick progs). Perhaps it even helps with this ridiculous 3xCTL E for ejections...

Ich empfehle Dir weg vom HF-8 hin zum Bassshaker. Den HF-8 hatte ich auch vor meinem Rig zur (bescheidenen) Simulation von Kräften / Beschleunigungen neben der reinen Vibration. Die benötigst Du aber nicht mehr im Motionrig. Ist nett, aber es fehlt wirklich der Wumms. Gerade im Heli ist das Flopflopflop des Shakers unglaublich beeindruckend und verstärkt das leichte Hüpfen des Rigs. Lautsprecher und Verstärker gibts für je 80€, Software für 30€. Buttkicker ist unnötig und überteuert. Die Rennheinis packen sich 4-5 Shaker mit 5.1 ins Gestell...

Danke schön . As I fly in VR I don't need the camera movement to look around. When I switch to any outboard view I can look around in that outer view, but I can't change its position. I can't rotate around an aircraft with any other device than the mouse, I just can look around from that initial position. So with HOTAS idea in mind it's very annoying to get the hand off the stick and grab the mouse when I got enought analoge hats/sticks on my HOTAS. I wonder why none of the devs reply with a solution. What's the idea behind limiting camera movement just to the mouse?

This is a General setting but can as well be found in all individual planes' axis setting, but I just checked for the FW-190 D-9, the F-16, the A-10 and F-4. Increased contrast dramatically for better visual difference what fields are "on" and "off"

Wake turbulunce is no factor when in pre-contact or when on the boom or way ahead below the belly. Curve parameters seem ok. Refueling experiece however varies a lot depending on weight and drag of your aircraft, asymmetric loadout, speed and altitude of the tanker, lighting conditions and pilot's endurance. Sometimes it helps, especilly when CAT I, to deploy the brakes a bit. Just a guess and from my experience as it indeed helps me: Keeping forward / aft stability is more difficult than up / down in my case as going up down can be achieved instantly. You always see an arrow up or down and know where you are or where you have to steer. Forward / aft is just helpful as long as you see a relation to a fixed mark. You really can see the "off" indicators due to the high contrast. It seems the "off" indicators are more important like in this example: you got from aft to front 1 off, 1 lit (with bad contrast), 3 off and you know exactly where you are and where you have to go. In an overall low contrast situation you just see one lit indicator and have to evaluate just by its position where you are.

Let go of all hope, they will never change that. I wait for a change in ejection button behaviour from three needed keypresses to just one keypress (for homepits) for 3 years. Sidenote: I feel very comfortable with the faint morse code while on ILS, helps me relaxing.

First try with level, straight formation flying. Your wingleader should be in autopilot and speed should already be settled. Identical loadout and Fuel Flow declaration can be helpful. Every change in speed, altitude, heading should be gentle and should be declared. That's what the winglead can do. Once you are settled stay with minimum inputs, you can even try with autopilot to keep the same altitude or pitch (yes, that's a sacrilege I know, but that's one axis less to care for). With the Paddle on your HOTAS you can easily adjust the altitude to aim for. Most of the time you have to adjust throttle inputs, a bit forth, a bit back till you find the sweet spot. Brakes help for quick change. Think ahead of your engine, it got quite some latency (other than piston engines). First get rid of your overshooting. Better take some time and learn about closure rates and how they correspond with the screen, i.e. how fast the "target" aircraft grows on your screen. Do you use VR? Headtracking? Keep your eyes somewhat fixed on your lead, but also keep him more in a peripheral view area. Like AAR and when you are dashing your car through a very narrow lane or right next a truck while in a narrow roadwork: If you fix your eyes on the side you will oscillate your inputs. Just look ahead and subconsciously you will steer correctly. Again, short, quick inputs, else it leads to PIO. Try different formations with that more or less stable lead aircraft.

yes, I tried to point that out with "All controller fields in analog axis are greyed out but mouse". Will upload a screenshot later this evening.

Looking for this for years: Camera view nick and ...yaw in General settings: All controller fields in analog axis are greyed out but mouse. Just the mouse got the 2 axis Mouse_X, Mouse_Y (plus zoom on Mouse_Z) active. I want to bind the view axis to my joysticks or throttle analog joysticks. These fields are grey and can't be programmed. Why... and how to change?

Yes, you are correct with your understanding. The SA-11 TR is very capable of performing SR tasks, once the Snow Drift is out, be aware of that. A "silent" TR does not mean it's silent, but can still be very active, just looking into another direction. On the other hand a noisy TR with a tracking or even missile launch warning does not necessarily mean that your aircraft is targeted, it can be as well one of your winmen in the same tracking cone. I might be wrong, but I did notice on/off behaviour of the radars for about half a year. Might be update related or different skill settings (the latter just influence engagement range, I guess).

Well, I noticed SAM emitters switching on/off depending on your threat level on them, i.e. is a HARM in the air towards them. HARMs seem to remember the position once they had picked up an emitter, depending on the mode PB, EOM etc with variable ranges and arcs. I have no idea about the azimuth / elevation resolution of the HARM seeker in conjunction with its poor INS navigation but I guess the closer they are when losing emitter the smaller the hit orb. ED can confirm or falsify my observation.

That's how HARMs (of that build) work. I don't understand "HARM evasion not switched on" and "as dumb as sites can get", honestly. You mean they are constantly emitting in "dumb mode"? In that case the HARM should usually hit as long as you are within the launch parameters and correct filtering etc. As you notice a change I think you know how to employ HARMs. In case SAM sites behave somewhat realistic that's what SEAD does: supressing, not necessarily destroying SAMs (that would be DEAD). The emitter turns off (SR, TR) once it sees you going agressive and shoot a HARM: self protection. Consequence is that all SARH missiles it shot are wasted but the site itself will most likely survive. They got plenty of missiles, you got just 2-4 per aircraft. So you might say "but I am using PB, so the HARM will exactly hit that prebriefed waypoint!". No, the F-16 HARM model got no GPS on board, it relies mainly, almost solely on its radar wave sniffing seeker head, and it will sniff towards the waypoint. The course and range is calculated by on board INS once the missile is released from the mother airplane and that INS tends to be no so reliable in reaching exactly that tiny lets say 10m effective destruction radius. orb - 5m too high can lead to several 100m too far impact. There are builds that have GPS, some other ARMs even IR additional to the radar homing head on board and still will hit the emitter with the approbiate IR signature, even if turned off the site still radiates heat! So I noticed it's no longer "shooting a HARM at the emitter within range and 99% kill", no, the site operators (in reality a team of highly skilled professionals with just the task of destroying an aircraft) know what to do and play cat and mouse with interchangable roles. You got engaged by an SAM site and 2 missiles in the air? Shoot a HARM at the site and if the odds are against them, they will stop emitting till the threat is gone. Then they will transmit and launch another set of missiles against you. You and them constantly evaluate the situation, aspect, range, likeliness of kill. That where cranking, notching, perhaps low level flying comes in handy. As long as the SAM site is wasting its missiles on you you are doing the exact job profile of SEAD! 50% hit (i.e. in fact at least a tactical kill!) ratio in SEAD is quite successful TBH. It means that one aircraft with a symmetric loadout of two HARMs shuts down one complete SAM site of TRs, SR, 6 launchers plus auxiliary units for some time, at least for the mission! Remember: SA-15 and SA-10 are very able to and will shoot down your HARMs. There is almost no need in switching off their emitters as they can track multiple targets and launch two missiles on each (SA-10) for a total of six or so, don't remember exactly, so take this with a ton of salt, but you got the idea. SA-10 killing is best with low level, short range attack - or simply saturating them. I like it when radar operators behave in self-preservation and there's at last a noticeable difference between SEAD and DEAD. It's sometimes a ride on the razor's edge, and for sure you already know the slogan of the first WildWeasel guys: YGBSM. Honestly... I feel like "You gotta be sh*tting me!" each SEAD mission. edit: HARM-C just antiradiation with INS for the DCS F-16, HARM-D with GPS update not available

Forget about boresighting the Maverick. Usually it's already somewhat aligned. When you go in hot just slew the TGP to the target area and then the WPN onto the target. THEN do a boresight, usually you got plenty of time. Boresighting is overrated IMHO. Exception: you have to pinpoint lets say a Tor, TGP it before, go ultralow, popup and have to almost instantly shoot a Maverick at 2-3nm. Then boresighting is important, but again, it's about divergence. You boresighted at 7nm before, then at an attack range of 2nm the boresight is still off. Also when conditions either for the IR or the TV seeker are bad and you have problems to identify them on the MFD a correct boresight will be an advantage, also when you got a huge amount of targets and have to take out one particular. Still then, just do boresighting on your attack run.

Danke Dir für Deine Arbeit! Ich bin bzgl. ED Patcherei etwas zynisch geworden. Simpelste, aber IMHO sinnvolle Dinge werden gar nicht verbessert. Dazu zähle ich die scheinbar unwichtige Einheitlichkeit in der Steuerungs-Einstellungen. Wer sich ein Cockpit baut - und ich bin für die 1000 schaltbaren Zustände glücklich - der verzweifelt manchmal. (Nicht nur) mein Wunsch, z.B. die Eject-Funktion (3x drücken) auf 1x zu reduzieren (eben für den Cockpitbau, Auslösung über 1 Schalter im Ejectionhandle)... 10x angefragt (sinngemäß´"we are aware of it, we change it with next update") hängt seit >1 Jahr in der Warteschleife, wenn überhaupt. Über die großen "Ver-patchereien" rede ich mal gar nicht. Nur über die einfachen Dinge, die 1-3 Zeilen Code innerhalb 5min ändern könnten.

... or perhaps let us dial in the VAR directly instead of choosing the right map? More work for us, less for you but freedom for all :).

Well, if you want to experience carrier landings and therefore favour the F-18: The F-16 can do carrier landings, it even got a (one way) hook. And as the Viper drivers know how to do a gentle on point touchdown - after some training, yes - it's not that of a problem. Though I admit I never did it in heavy crosswinds - are there any crosswinds at all on an intact carrier ?

The crosshair collapses on the target and jitters a bit? Then it's locked. If not, it's not. Also check if you are inside the launch parameters, but I think it fires though. Keep holding WPN REL a bit.