SoW Reddog

DCS needs to decide what it wants to be. A study sim where combat is a minor passing reference or a combat flight sim where aircraft fidelity is secondary to the environment. I don't personally think it can be both, or within my lifetime... Personally I would rather see DCS relax it's absolute adherence to fidelity and fully clickable cockpits in preference for building a coherent and comprehensive environment. I'm not saying to play fast and lose or make it up, and any planes released should be looked to upgrade to clickable cockpits etc in time but it seems the most rational way of getting content out in a reasonably quick fashion. To answer the question, I would build on the existing Normandy time period (however much I disagree with the original choice) and bring us a P47, 109G , 190 A8, b25, Ju88, mosquito, typhoon and tempest.

So there is no response from devs on this in over a year... really? DCS has such potential but they release too much unfinished alpha /beta/early release and never finish it off. Disappointing.

Agreed, that's how it's worded to me too. To say I was disappointed it wasn't so is an understatement....

I voted don't care as I don't own the Mustang. However if it's to set a precedent for the aircraft that I do own then please change my vote to Yes. Also, the premise of this thread was not to prioritise Dev work over anything else. That right there is a straw man. It is a simple yes no on the merit of the proposal itself. With due respect. You are a moderator. Apply the rules of the forum by all means, but you are not the official spokesperson, nor the final arbiter of right or wrong. Please don't blur the lines.You have an opinion. The same as the rest of us. That's all.

He's completely defragged his hard drives, removed the install entirely, reinstalled on a different drive etc. He had no problems say a month ago, except a spate of BSOD which seemed tied to an improperly seated gfx card which since reseating have disappeared. It seems that something has changed recently.

Where does the JSON file get exported to? I'm guessing we could mod the SRS source to output a CSV as well?

Thanks Grimes. I hadn't realised there was a difference. D'oh! I had code which worked to a point (and then silently errored with nothing in the log) in GameGUI which when I moved it to the mission and fired it off via a trigger started erroring on things which worked previously like StatSystem.logFile:write(os.date("!%c").." - "..str.."\n")So I'm guessing that eventhandlers are not within the mission environment exposed via GameGUI then? and the net.log() isn't exposed within the ME trigger environment then? Is there a rundown on what does and doesn't work where?

Is there a difference between the environments run from GameGUI files and those scripts run from mission triggers?

The map is big but not quite big enough to stretch to Berlin, Vienna or Hamburg...

Ok, some progress. Using the mysql.dll from the example in this thread https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=176486 I've managed to get luasql to load via require. However env=luasql.mysql () fails. And I get zero indication in dcs.log why. Someone must have some idea about this.

Well as far as I can see it is ALL going to be what if. Unless there is a way of removing from the map ALG sites that hadn't been built. In the stream there was a comment about an Epsom campaign. Now correlate the dates of Epsom vs the dates of the ALG shown thus far.... it's as incorrect as putting a Viggen on the map. Would you accept calling a Mk IX s Mk 2 if I told you it was one? How is accuracy the benchmark in one sphere and not in another? I really don't get how ED operates. (Yes, a "Normandy" map wasn't their idea. But the implementation is).

What date is the Normandy Map nominally representing?

I've been pratting around with this for a couple of days. Seems a few old threads point to it being done in the FC3 days but nothing very recent. Can someone (anyone!) confirm that all I theoretically need to do is have a luasql folder containing the dll in the dcs world\bin folder, and correct syntax in a lua file. I don't need to point the lua file to reference the dll in any way?

God I hope not. For a mission maker that sort of thing is a nightmare, please make sure you can turn it off.

This so frustrating. None of the guides look anything like what I'm seeing. I've downloaded Max 2014. I've installed EDM plugin 115338, and installed EDM ModelViewer 115338. I do NOT get anywhere with the "Make Cool". I get an error about "Connect requires SubAnims" and that's it. I now understand why there's so few people actually doing any modding comparatively compared to say ARMA. Because the entry level is set so fecking high, through deprecated software (2014, really?) and the lack of any sort of up to date documentation, it's almost entirely impossible for anyone except a professional to just come along and have a go. Please, someone, help. :helpsmilie:

I am just trying to prove that it is possible for me to get something into game, before I waste time trying to do something serious. I'm trying to follow this guide as a very crash course in modding. I've managed to make my 3d shape (lets not call it a plane although it's roughly plane shaped - I am not a 3d modeller!). I've got the EDM plugin installed, and finally found a ModelViewer that worked. I've made a single 512*512 bitmap of a red colour and attempted to apply that to the shape. However, when I apply it, 1 the shape doesn't go red but grey? (Is that normal?) Then when I try to "Make it Cool", I don't seem to get the special properties the guide mentions, and it doesn't elaborate on what I should be seeing. So I'm a bit confused. When I export to ModelViewer, I see no object at all. Appreciate any help or pointers.

I've tried 119400 and 119466. Neither seem to have deposited a GraphicsCore.dll in the folder. Can you confirm that you do have one in the ModelViewer Folder?

When trying to fire up ModelViewer I'm getting a message that I don't have "GraphicsCore.dll" and to try reinstalling. I've tried the last two builds from the ftp, same result. ANyone got any ideas?

Having organised the Storm of War server for IL2 Cliffs of Dover for 2 years and run dynamic, 24/7 multisquad campaigns, I know for a fact that there are players who like nothing more than to fly a bomber to a difficult target in the face of stiff, organised opposition. (OK, they like being escorted too). The lack of any light, medium or heavy bomber modules in DCS is a significant flaw IMO if ED are serious about making a coherent and credible WW2 Environment and not just a warbird dogfight simulator. The players I mention above are, in the main, not interested in DCS because of the lack of these bombers. I know that there are AI mods out there for some WW2 bombers, but haven't checked them out. If they're like the rest of the AI within DCS, then the accuracy/immersion of the DM and FM they use also calls into the question of exactly what ED are aiming for.

In Storm of War (using Cliffs of Dover), we allowed units to request and be based at specific airfield dispersals and had a fully integrated aircraft allocation system which gave you what A/C serial number or Werknummer you were flying. Only members of those squadrons could spawn at their base, and aircraft were only available until their stock ran out. Is this possible with the DCS system? Tenuously related question - Is it possible to restrict the slot screen to only show aircraft available to your "side". It seems somewhat odd that you can immediately see where the opposition is based and what aircraft they have available.

According to the control set up the "" key should bring up the communication menu for rearm etc. It doesn't. However the # key does, but there is no reference in the key binding to anything bound to that key. Bug or have I done something stupid?

I couldn't get the eject to bind to warthog either.

Ok, so I wasn't expecting to have to load the beta but fine, that's easy enough by the looks of it. What surprises me more appears to be that it's been developed and tested on the stable branch. Why would you then release on a branch you haven't been using? New functionality? Bug fixes? Isn't it a bit late in the day for that switch? Anyway, it will be what it is. I've paid my money.

Thanks but that doesn't really counter the point although the addition of Southern England is a major improvement on the map, the fact remains that if the map includes all the ALG, then there is NO combat in the area represented by the map at the time it portrays. Ps, it is "Needs Ore Point", not oar.

I'm confused by the Normandy map to be honest. If I understand correctly, the Allied Advanced Landing Grounds will be shown and part of the base map. Based off this link https://forums.eagle.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=151558&d=1478986897 The last one of those in the area (didn't verify every one) the screenshot covers was operational on 25th August. Cobra which saw the cotentin cut off and saint lo captured began July 25 and Falaise was 12-21st August which kind of signalled the end of the active war fighting in this area shown on this map although there might be a bit more on the very east edge. There certainly wouldn't have been any LW operating bases in this area by this time. So basically as far as I can see we are getting a post normandy campaign, normandy map. Unless the map will have multiple versions over a date range, I honestly cannot see how it is historically useful whatsoever.