Case

From what I understand this is not the case. There is a difference between serverside LUA exports that export all data (the stuff which Tacview uses), or client side LUA export which exports only data referring to the client (I think this is the stuff that LockOn Virtual Panel uses). Now apparently FC2.0 also exports data the clients radar sees, basically the position, altitude, speed and coalition of the contacts. LEAVU uses this information to display on the MPCDs, but also has the ability to share it with others. This client side LUA export apparently is available regardless what is set on the server. And here is the problem. This should be set through the server, cause only then can you create a server where you can have no doubts what so ever that people are sharing data through software like LEAVU or otherwise.

People are missing some critical points here. First, the debate about LEAVU is not if it is realistic or not. Second, LEAVU is not specified to a single aircraft. The MPCDs that are available now are in the style of the F-15/F-16, but if you were flying a RUSFOR aircraft you could still share data between players in your coalition, you'd just get it displayed in a NATO like manner. The problem is not even LEAVU itself. The problem is that Lock On allows players to access certain pieces of data, like their own airspeed, altitude and position. Apparently in FC2.0 players will also get access to information about the contacts they see on radar. If this ability exists in FC1.12, I do not know. With the access to such data, software like LEAVU can be used to share it between players in an automated fashion. This would greatly hurt multiplayer gameplay, because you would not know who is sharing data with who, be it using LEAVU or some other piece of software. In my opinion, Lock On would need a setting that specifies if the player can have access to his own data through LUA. If that setting forbids the player to see his own data, software like LEAVU can't share it with others. This setting should be set by the hosting server, just like it sets whether labels are on or off, or whether external views are allowed. I hope I have made myself clear, and I people will agree with me on this and start a lobby to try to have ED implement such a feature. Only if such a feature exists can LEAVU be used without any doubts about people using it to gain an advantage over others. Server administrators can just decide if they want LEAVU to work on their server or not.

As CyBerkut noted before, the issue of whether or not Yoda should continue with LEAVU is a moot point, as the code and the idea is out there and people can take advantage over it. It would not matter if Yoda were to keep parts of the code closed or were to remove functionality, because that could be added by someone else. The only real solution to this problem is having ED implement some sort of server based flag that allows or disallows clients to the server to use the exported OWNSHIP data. Only if this is disallowed can anyone be certain that players are not sharing information between each other in an automated fashion. It would be great if the flag could even have multiple options, where you could set it to export no OWNSHIP data at all, all OWNSHIP data, or OWNSHIP data but without the targets seen on the radar. The latter would allow LEAVU users to use the datalink to relay their own positions between each other.

Well, if you are designing this on the basis of reality, such limits would seem pretty important to me.

I think Viper may have been referring to what limitations your software sets to this. Or at least that is what I am interested in.

The problem is that if it cannot be controlled by the server, you will not know who does and does not use it.

Happy birthday Mustang! Make sure to get pissed tonight!

Great news! Many thanks for keeping Flaming Cliffs alive! Will the map feature all the airbases in DCS:BS or will there be additional bases like Mozdok?

Great video! Good work!

Concragulations Gruya and gang! Well done :thumbup:

Hi Rooster! Nice to see you here! :thumbup:

Nice video! Cool payload on that Su-33!

Hi Yoda, This is exactly what we tried to figure out yesterday, and the illegalweapons.log file comes back that the plane index is -1. As far as I can tell this number comes from the PlaneToInt function that does not know the name of the airplane. The AdA mod replaces the models of the MiG-29S and its weapons, but it also changes the name of the aircraft. I could not figure out what name the aircraft does give and how to make LRM accept it. The next thing I wanted to try is if the name in the MEinit.xml file is the culprit, cause if it is they can just change it on the client side. Perhaps you know where the plane name that LRM uses originates from?

The 51st has the following running on the <51>Dedicated: Tacview G15support Strobelightsupport LockOnPanelSupport Touchbuddysupport FixEagleRadar PayloadControl AirfieldScripts AirfieldOwnership OnlyRunwayTakeoff OnlyParkedRefuel AntiRFloorsploit AntiRFloorsploit2 DeadisDead Besides this, we have adapted the LRM script to limit weapons in one of our missions that is in rotation. Whenever this mission is up, payloads are restricted to 1980's only, and no AIM-120's, R-27ER's, R-27ET's, R-27EM's or R-77's are allowed. Furthermore, some A2G payloads are also restricted. Our missions make heavy use of the airbase ownership in LRM by restricting takeoffs only from spawn points and forward airbases. Our stats page is intertwined with this. Any pilot that lands at a friendly airbase gets the points he earned in his flight doubled.

Okay, fair enough. We are nitpicking here anyway. But to digress, are you sure this is true for LockOn? I always get the impression a MiG will become visible at shorter ranges compared to a Flanker or Eagle.

I can't imagine it to take more processing than figuring out if a source is behind a hill or not. In essence you want to compute the line-of-sight velocity towards each radar, and if it is below some limiting value then it wouldn't be visible. Concerning your radar envelope, does that take into account distance and RCS dependence?

We got to discuss LotATC on Hyperlobby today and the question was raised if you model notching. Do you take into account the line-of-sight velocity towards radars to decide if a contact is visible or not?

You may want to read up on the different sections of the ED forums. This on is about LockOn, not DCS:Black Shark.

What Frostie was trying to say was that the AI is the worst cheater around. They will ALWAYS know WHERE you are, they will ALWAYS know WHAT you fired, and they have infinite supply of chaff and flares.

Let me be constructive as well... If you have the player flying with an AI wingman, the wingman will probably scream 'missile launch 12 o'clock' regardless if he can see it or not. Otherwise you may want to decide to not put any IR SAMs in, because it will just suck for the player to die without any warning or chance to see the missile. In fact in real life I wouldn't expect a chopper pilot to fly into an area known to have MANPADs at night. Better to stick to AAA instead, which will stick out like a sore thumb at night.

It's always the same guys spoiling the fun :D

I am not sure how it is done exactly, but I seem to recall it having to do with a file named nomera.tga (or similar). Perhaps you can search the forums for such keywords.

Apparently you haven't played any exhilerating coop missions lately :D Isn't this what you as a beta tester are supposed to put forward?

Then stop posting in this thread :D

I recall Yoda looked into it, seeing if screenshots were taken by keeping track of the number of files in the screenshots directory, but I don't think he got it working. Anyhow, I do not think printscreening is a problem. It is very rare to see a warp that you can attribute to a print screen.