Case

What I don't get is why no server admin that supports ERI has made a set of files that pass the integrity check of their server that allows and checks ERI? The fact that no server admin has done this suggests they find it more important to allow everyone on their server, instead of giving those flying the F-15 an advantage. So server admins, do you find ERI important enough to go for a non-stock set of integrity check files? Because that is the real question.

I'm sure Viper will take extra pleasure having shot your F-15 down cause he drove his Tor all the way up the mountain :D

That is because in FC2 these manouvers are not as successfull as in FC1, for the sake of reality. Like I said above, the only foolproof way of defeating a SARH is placing the missile in your rear hemisphere, behind your 3/9 line. To make sure you don't have to do this, you will have to get your missile to your bandit before his. Or, fly with a wingmen and use team tactics. It is so much more fun working together with a wingmen.

No, there is no fool proof way of beating a SARH without placing it in your rear hemisphere, past your 3/9 line. So what you should try to do is get your missile to your bandit before his gets to you. The way to do this is to get launch authorization first by flying higher, launch, and them minimize your velocity towards the bandit by braking, by putting him on the gimbals and by decending. Get familiar with typical time-of-flight parameters so you will know when the missile should've hit, and when you have to turn cold to defeat inbound missiles. It is tricky, but it is so much more fun than fighting with actives.

Yes, it is, with net.kick you can kick a player from LUA. However, the problem is getting the information needed from the triggers in the game to the LUA code outside the game. The only way LUA gets ingame information in FC2/DCS are the in game hooks like on_eject(), on_crash() etc. To me it seems that none of these can be turned into a foolproof way of getting the necessary information there. My present suggestion would be to stay with the explode unit trigger action, but push ED to implement functionality to the game to have triggers talk to LUA and vice versa.

Yes, it is unfortunate the server cannot deactivate client units...

Very constructive to the discussion.

No, unfortunately no such trigger exists. It would be great if we could do this, but unfortunately we can't. No, unfortunately not. I think you remember the trigger action when an airbase changes coalition. FC2/DCS doesn't have such trigger actions as of yet. The only way to log if a player took off from a taxi way is to explode him when he does so, as the logs will record him crashing. This was due to Yoda's LRM script, which was enforced on all clients when they loaded in. It essentially took over the players controls and braked if he went too fast. Unfortunately in FC2/DCS there is not an option to force such scripts onto players without them having to make a concious decision to download the script and install it.

Good initiative HiJack! I played a bit with this myself. Here are some suggestions: use switched conditions for your triggers, as this will allow players to return to an airbase to rearm and refuel instead of testing on speed, place a zone around the airfield, and once the player leaves that with a false flag indicating a violation, explode him. This way the debris will not accumulate on the airfield if he climbs steeply. Also note that players can still take off from the taxiways when they return, or land on taxiways, but this isn't as big a problem as the take-offs on spawning in. In order to allow other players see who violated the rules, you can have your message display the players tail number, which is visible in the player pool. If the mission is designed properly then bombed out runways or proximity of enemy aircraft will occur far less often than players taking off from taxiways.

Ok, it maybe that only the BS editor does this, I haven't seen the FC2 editor adding these files. I just tested your Gudauta Rush mission, and removing the whole config folder from the miz file allows user defined views again. I don't think it should impact the way the mission runs, but perhaps you could make a version of your missions and test those for a week to see how things go. Yes, that should release the views.

Hi Dragon, I really like your missions, but have one request. Could you remove the config/view resitrictions from the missions? Especially the missions where FC2 planes are present the current config/view restrictions have a very narrow field of view and introduce artifacts from the model. S! Case

Yes, Nate is right. Black Shark and FC2.0 have the same file structure, so you should be able to use this one too. Remember though that several servers, I know the 51st for sure, do not IC the rearm menu, so in principle you should be able to connect to them. Also check that you are not using Tacview, as this will change export.lua, which is not allowed on most servers.

Not having the satellite view is a big drawback in making missions for FC2/DCS. However, the editor is very moddable, and some good mods have been released. Check out Blindspot's Modded ME. This also contains my Bearing Bug Fix. These mods will make your life a little easier.

That mission information is part of the triggers in the mission. You will have to edit or remove some or more of the triggers. Read the manual to find out how the triggers work. Remember that you probably cannot simply remove all the triggers, as some of the triggers may spawn other units that are critical to the mission.

Take a look at some of the stock missions in the editor, most use basic triggers, while some use much more complex triggers. Also search these forums, as many trigger scenarios were discussed here.

Dutch F-16 Solo Display Team And a video shot from the Boeing.

Congrats Spain! Still, as a Dutchman, I'd liked to have seen Holland win, despite their rough playing.

I believe the Kh-22's are an antiship weapon only, and I have made missions where the Tu-22 launches them at ships. If you want cruise missiles to attack units on land, use a Tu-95 or Tu-160 armed with Kh-65's or a Su-24 or Su-34 with Kh-59's.

Yes. Read the manual.

Not really, you'd only spawn the vehicle when you want to know if the bridge is destroyed or not. You could spawn it when the aircraft has left the target area using a unit outside zone trigger.

I might do it differently, where I'd have a trigger zone before and after the bridge. When the unit is in the first zone it sets a flag which gets reset when it enters the second zone. Since it will take the unit some specified amount of time to pass the bridge and go from the first to the second zone, you can use a time since flag to check if the flag is still true after that specified amount of time has passed. If it is true, the unit didn't pass the bridge and the bridge is likely to be destroyed.

You cannot. The best way to do this is to use a trigger zone and only replace the group if the escorts are destroyed AND the group is within the trigger zone. Set the size of the trigger zone small enough to minimize the jump between positions. Use single units instead of groups and do the tests on single units only. So if the escorts are dead AND the unit is alive, replace the unit.

HUP HOLLAND HUP

Happy Birthday! :holiday::drink::beer::yay:

This fix does not affect multiplayer and missions made with a ME using the fix will play perfectly on machines with the ME without the fix.