Pizzicato

Thanks for the reply @hitotose. I haven't had a chance to properly check out the links just yet, but I really appreciate the response.

It seems weird to me that one of the largest military airbases in Iraq just 30nm south of Baghdad and so massively prominent in the satellite data isn't planned for inclusion. It's almost impossible to miss this site when flying in from any Southern location, so it'll become even more of an oddity once the Kuwaiti, Saudi Arabian and Qatari airbases are modelled as staging points for allied sorties.

Just want to add my voice to this. I've spent most of the day making and testing missions, and I've been kicked out of the game four times because my login session expired - including after pausing the game mid-mission for 15 minutes just to grab some food. This kind of nonsense is completely enraging and anti-consumer, especially when you've already forced me to jump through the hoop of logging into a singleplayer game. If you want to piss your consumers off and lose players, this is a wonderful way of going about it.

Wind direction definitely dictates takeoff direction for modern "runway-bound" aircraft in DCS. There are also some airbases where only one direction is permitted for takeoff (usually if the other end of the runway is obstructed by hills or mountains, e.g. Kerman in the Persian Gulf). It seems strange that these limitations would extend to open, unobstructed airfields like Hawkinge, though. Who knows with DCS, though.

@Grimes I found a couple of subtle typos in the Scripting Wiki documentation that can easily trip people up. I'd be happy to make the changes whenever I find this kind of thing as opposed to reporting them, but I'm not sure how to get editing access. Regardless, the issues are: https://wiki.hoggitworld.com/view/DCS_Class_Controller The enumerator is listed as conroller as opposed to controller. https://wiki.hoggitworld.com/view/DCS_option_roe The value enumerators for both Ground and Naval are listed as Val as opposed to val.

Have you tried with Historical Mode toggled off in case there's some issue with how their dates are being stored in the database?

Yes! Both of these models are DESPERATELY in need of replacement. Not just for the new Cold War Germany map, but also Iraq, the Persian Gulf and probably Sinai and Kola, too.

Hey all, Does anyone know which airbases/airports were used by the RCAF CF-18s in the first Gulf War? My understanding was that they were based "near Doha" in Qatar, and I think Canada Dry One might have been Doha International airport. I have no idea where Canada Dry Two was, though. I'm assuming it was one of the other three airbases that are planned for Qatar in the southern expansion to the map, but I have no actual idea. Does anyone with better Google skills than me (or some actual practical knowledge) know the answer(s)?

That's some impressive investigation, @western_JPN. Nice work.

This is happening all over the map. I ran into the issue at Altes Lager, Peenemunde and Neuruppin before giving up on my attempts to populate the map for the time being.

Ugh. Yeah, this seems very broken.

It's all personal opinion, really. I bought Iraq on a whim, expecting exactly what you described. I was actually really surprised by the diversity and beauty of the region, though. Some of areas are genuinely stunning and really I'm looking forward to the expansion of that map. I'm less sold on Afghanistan, though.

Turns out this is also an issue at Neuruppin, so it looks as though this is maybe more of a map-wide issue as opposed to being limited to just a couple of airbases.

Similar to the Peenemunde issue reported earlier, it's impossible to place more than two aircraft as Takeoff from Parking or Takeoff from Ramp at the Altes Lager airbase.

Placing more than two aircraft at Peenemunde results in a No Parking for Aircraft error.

Aircraft can only be assigned to takeoff from the runway at Allstedt. Assigning them to Takeoff from Parking or Takeoff from Ramp causes them to jump 20nm to Merseburg even though Allsetdt appears to have 128 parking slots.

The big hill at the NE end of Spangdahlem means that AI aircraft always crash when trying to land on runway 23. This seems to be 100% reproducible, at least with the Hornet. (It's actually a pretty tricky approach for human pilots, too, but it's suicide for the AI). Broken AI Landing Spangdahlem.miz

Is there a list anywhere of which of the dozens of airports are military airbases versus commercial airports?

Yeah. I flew a tour of the SW corner of the map out of Spangdahlem in low cloud and light rain in the Hornet and it was absolutely amazing. Massively impressed with this map so far.

Glad to see this marked as "Already Planned". Hope this gets addressed sooner rather than later.

I noticed the same thing at Hamburg Finkenwerder. It looks like they've got multiple objects placed at the exact same coordinates, so there's a ton of z-fighting going on. I don't know for sure, but I'd assume it's a copy/paste error.

Ugh. Well that sucks.

Fixed that for you.

Hey all, I've been trying to build a table of Units that have radars. I created a simple test mission (attached) that has a bunch of Groups (AWACS, Fighters, Transport Heli, Ticonderoga, EWR, Hawk Battery, NASAMS battery, etc). The mission simply iterates the various Groups and runs Unit.hasSensors( Unit.SensorType.RADAR ) on the various Units within. The results all seem correct for the Aircraft and Naval Units, but incorrect for the Ground units. For example, all of the NASAMS and EWR units (including the NASAMS Search Radar and the two versions of the EWR AN/FPS-117 Radar Unit return FALSE for the radar check. On the other hand, every Unit in the Hawk Group(including the Launchers and C2 vehicle) returns TRUE for the radar check. Edit: After some more investigation, it appears that the function only evaluates the FIRST UNIT in the Group. If the first unit has a radar, then EVERY unit in the group returns TRUE even if it doesn't actually have one. Similarly, if the first unit DOESN'T have a radar then each of the subsequent units is also regarded as being "radar-less." I would assume that this isn't the intended behaviour since it clearly returns incorrect results. @Flappie for visibility. Radar Network Test 01.miz

Hey all/ @Flappie Edit: I had to re-upload the WORKS file, but it's now hidden away at the very bottom of the post. Sorry! It looks like the getDetectedTargets() function got broken with the 2.9.6.58056 hotfix. It works fine when you call it without arguments, but it never works when provided with a detectionType argument. This is true regardless of whether you provide the enum (e.g. Controller.Detection.RADAR) or the integer value (e.g. 4). I've tried this with air and ground units, and differing combinations of OPTICAL, RADAR, and IRST detection types. I've provided three versions of the same simple test with a lone A-50 trying to detect a nearby C-130. It successfully detects the Hercules every 5 seconds when no argument is provided, but fails with both the enum and the integer.nullnullnull You'll see the same issue if you try it with ground units, too. TEST_Detection_FAILS_1.mizTEST_Detection_FAILS_2.miz TEST_Detection_WORKS.miz