Pizzicato

No.Razbam's working on the F-15E Strike Eagle. The current discussion is about whether or not ED would ever develop a full-fidelity F-15C.

I think there are other perfectly likely interpretations of NineLine's comment beyond "This isn't promising" Given that NineLine's a Community Manager living on the other side of the world from a dev team that typically likes to play its cards close to its chest, you could also reasonably interpret the comment as either: or

Are you running the Open Beta?

Yeah. I think your point was that you’d be happy walking into a restaurant and telling a chef how to cook your meal, or walking into a garage and tell the mechanic how to fix your car. I'm not convinced.

This should help with your first question: https://wiki.hoggitworld.com/view/DCS_command_transmitMessage It looks like the message will only be broadcast to groups (including the player) on the broadcasting unit's current frequency. In the case of your F-15, this would be 124.00 Mhz.

Never mind - I figured it out. I just needed to unpack the table passed by scheduleFunction() in order to get at the 'group' table.

I also tried this (very redundant) test to see if defining the function within the script worked:

I was just playing around with a very simple script to remove a group when it reaches a certain point. It works just fine if I use either of the following: ... but the script silently fails if I try to accomplish the same thing with a minor delay via the timer.scheduleFunction() method: I'm sure I'm missing something painfully obvious, but I can't figure out where/how the syntax is wrong.

Hot DAMN! The info and details in that interview are INSANELY exciting. :thumbup: That's the best thing I've read in forever...

Hey guys, Just wanted to make sure I'm correctly understanding something. If I want to spawn a specific aircraft group from a table that I've created using mist.makeUnitTable({'[blue][plane]}), do I then need to get get the groupName of the unit in question and then use that to find the reference to the group I want to spawn? e.g. This feels pretty convoluted, and I suspect it's just a product of my lack of scripting skill. Is there a cleaner, more efficient way of accomplishing the same thing?

Thanks Hardcard. Turns out I was falling foul of the old "ME-not-updating-the-script-files" issue. My scripts were actually right, but it was consistently running outdated versions. It was driving me insane. Thanks for your help.:thumbup:

Hey guys, I've got a couple of pretty naive and basic questions about Lua scripting in DCS. As it stands, I'm loading a Lua script named missionConfig.lua that defines some mission-specific constants. I then have a script named aircraftSpawner.lua that spawns flights of aircraft based on the constants defined in the missionConfig.lua. For the sake of the discussion, one of the missionConfig.lua constants that is referenced by aircraftSpawner.lua is a string named alertLevel. So the questions/issues I have are: 1. The alertLevel constant in missionConfig.lua is defined as local alertLevel = "HIGH", but I can still access it in aircraftSpawner.lua with trigger.action.outText(alertLevel, 5, false). It seems wrong to me that I can reference a local variable from one script in a different script. What am I missing? 2. I'd like to use a C#-like Get method/function in the missionConfig.lua (e.g. function getAlertLevel() return alertLevel end), but I can't figure out how to create that type of static method and make it accessible to the aircraftSpawner.lua Any help or advice on these two issues would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance.

Typically, ED always aims to make systems as realistic as the available declassified documentation allows. Do you have a more specific question?

I had a similar response and confusion at first. I suspect that this was a slightly rushed, last-minute addition in response to the various frustrations that have surfaced on the forums over the past few days. Hopefully the format will evolve and expand over time, but it’s a welcome first step in the right direction.

It doesn’t make any sense to tell seasoned experts how best to do their jobs. It’s fine to respectfully point out the issues you’re seeing, but the team at ED are the best placed to decide what to implement any given solutions. Whatever other shortcomings ED may have, they’re clearly very seasoned and talented developers.

Pretty sure he meant "further behind the Viper as regards this feature." I tend to agree that the messaging from ED could have been better in this instance. TWS has been one of them most consistently asked for Hornet features since Day One, so announcing its debut as a feature for the brand new Viper instead of the Hornet was always going to generate negative responses in some quarters. It would have been smarter to have got ahead of this conversation, as opposed to letting the speculation, conjecture and grumbling start first.

There's a good argument that a small, independent developer such as ED shouldn't be trying to compete head-to-head, feature-for-feature with a multi-billion dollar mega-corporation's offering. In my opinion, ED would be much better off understanding how DCS World can differentiate itself an make itself a meaningfully unique experience. That's where the combat experience and sense of being in a "real" war starts to make even more logical sense as a unique differentiating factor. Lean into delivering on the core fantasy of vicariously living out the experiences of a frontline military pilot. DCS doesn’t lose if it doesn’t match up feature-for-feature with the competition. DCS loses if it doesn’t bring anything unique and ownable to the table.

Agreed on everything - especially the desire for a Kola Peninsula / Scandinavia map. :thumbup:

Not me. That was a great post from my perspective. I'd be more than happy to make one-off contributions for key features such as ATC, weather, or a Dynamic Campaign. At least then (if the contribution threshold was met) I'd know that there was a solid commitment towards tangible progress in that direction. I actively WANT to pay to help DCS become the sim I believe it can be, but I don't want to do it via the endless purchasing of never-to-finished aircraft modules. Flying half-finished modules in an empty and bug-riddled environment isn't what gets me excited and passionate about DCS.

While I don't necessarily agree with every single point in the video, it does a great job of succinctly and (largely) objectively highlighting the biggest issues with DCS. Like many others on this forum, DCS is my main hobby: I've bought almost every module. I built my new PC exclusively for DCS. I bought both the Oculus Rift and then Oculus Rift S exclusively for DCS. I bought the Thrustmaster Warthog, the MFG Crosswind pedals, and various hobbyist stands and extensions exclusively for DCS. DCS is literally the ONLY game I've got installed on my PC. Additionally, the ED forums are my most visited website on my home PC, my work PC and my phone - and I stop by multiple times a day just to stay up to date. It's not exactly an obsession, but it's by FAR my biggest hobby... and I know that I'm FAR from alone in this. But despite the fact that it's my primary hobby, I have the exact same love/hate relationship with DCS that's called out in the video: I'm pretty much burnt out on buying new modules. It's not so much an issue of completeness or quality from my perspective, but a function of the fact that I can only stay current on one or two at a time. There are other features that I care about FAR more than the introduction of yet another new module to learn. I'm tired of the lifeless, soulless DCS environment. You've got stunningly beautiful, wonderfully system-modelled, high-fidelity aircraft in a stunningly beautiful world... that's utterly sterile and devoid of any semblance of character or personality. I'm tired of having nothing meaningful or rewarding to do in my beautiful aircraft in this beautiful world, beyond a handful of very limited, highly-scripted missions and campaigns. I'm constantly frustrated by the endless "been-in-the-sim-forever" bugs, issues and missing features that constantly undermine the core experience. Don't get me wrong - DCS is absolutely AMAZING in so many ways. It wouldn't have such a strong community and hold our collective attention so tightly if it didn't constantly display the seeds of greatness. The issue - at least from my perspective - is that there's (seemingly) very little care or focus directed towards the core of the experience. The good news is that it's a long way from being a lost cause, though. There's an incredible foundation in place, and vast evidence of the skills and expertise at ED's disposal. It just needs to be directed into the right areas within the constraints of the business model. Hopefully the recent expressions of customer frustration will see ED make some considered shifts in direction. I choose to remain positive and optimistic. :thumbup:

I'm grateful for the update and getting a sense of what's coming down the pipe next.

I'm getting the water flickering really badly. Flying the F-18 in the Persian Gulf using an MSI 1080ti with Nvidia 436.48 on the latest OB 2.5.5.36986.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4053094&postcount=17

What was the biggest technical challenge in bringing the Viper to DCS? Are there any aspects of the Viper that you prefer to the Hornet?

Got it. Thanks!