philstyle

Qn 1: Where do custom skins go for a dedi-server host? Or are they not necessary any more? All clients will have them installed, but I presume the server needs them somewhere also. . Qn 2: Does the "Mission End" script in the ME no longer work with dedi-server missions? I have a mission set to "mission end" after 14000 count (14000 seconds), however, 23 hours later that mission is still running and the server has not finished the mission and moved on to the second one in the playlist. Is there a new process now for getting missions to end and rotate. . . ?

Since 1.6.1 update my server version of SRS has been randomly shutting down/ disconnecting. I had this issue a few versions ago, but it resolved itself. Now it seems to be back. I love SRS, but it just doesn't seem to be as stable as one would like. If only ED would intergate a proper VOIP system into the radios of the DCS itself. . . I know they said they were looking at this, but development new has dried up.

I've posted this elsewhere, but here is probably the most suitable place.

Thanks OctopusG, Well done for adding a new WW2 era module, the frist we've seen in a while. It's a great addition to the DCS stable. I hope you get good sales, and are encouraged to develop more.

Yup, I16 did not have trims. This is proper pre-war flying. Seat-of-pants and hands-on 100%.

My plan is to have a look at this over the next two days and get a review-ish video up.

I dared to suggest this more than a year ago, and was given a hearty reprimand (hence the "warning" on my profile). .

Just to help with the resources bit, On the Storm of War server, we've used the static smoke effects with the "density" set to its lowest possible value, which I think is 0.1 (it defaults at 1.0). This drastically reduces the performance hit, whilst still looking pretty good. In fact, visually, I far prefer the lower density value because the smoke looks more whispy/ hazy and doesn't start and stop so abruptly like the full density setting. Doing this means we can have 10 or more smoke effects in visual range without any appreciable impact on FPS for players. If set to full density, having more than 3 or 4 starts to tax the frame rates. Maybe give it a try?

Nobody knows I expect it will not be fixed.

I think the responses against expanding the timeline further back are based on the following: 1. The current 1944 scenario is far from complete or ready as it is, in many people's opinion. ED should get the current commitment up to scratch before spending effort on widening the scope of the WW2 product 2. The map especially could be made to provide for a scenario that dated from late 1940 all the way to August 1944. However, a very short period (post invasion) has already been hard-coded into the map, and even then, the map makers have got it wrong! Therefore the first priority to opening up WW2 to wider chronology should be the map. Get it right first, then start expanding the assets. Like me, I think many WW2 DCS players would love to see the entire war eventually playable in DCS ww2, or at least additional specific flashpoints and battles being depicted (like a pacific set, or northern Italy 1944, or the English Channel in 1943). However we have very little confidence, based on empirical experience with EDs execution to date, that this is anywhere near realistic or achievable. Our best bet then, as customers, is to try and express our preference for a single cohesive and sensible scenario that satisfies the existing project BEFORE any effort is spent on geographic or chronological expansion. So don't take the resistance to your interest in a wider DCS WW2 offering as generally pooh-poohing the idea. It is just that we don't want ED to devote ANY attention to anything WW2 related unless it means getting the existing scenario properly fleshed out and at least "arguably" historical first. Ideally we'd like to present a consistent customer voice to the supplier on this issue, hence why suggestions to expand the scenario tend to get the reaction you're seeing. In the long run, however, there is no real objection to more WW2 content . . . It's about focus, and finishing what was started first.

I'm hopgin to work through the Big Show Campaign over the next month or so. I'll post videos (mods permittign) in this thread. Att he end I plan to sum up the campaign in a conclusions/ review video. Here's mission one, which I flew over the weekend.

Ok, does this mean that after that those old missions I made will work now, or are they all now lost? Incidentally, it is working now, so thanks. Next question: How can I get a server description added, s I can have SRS address etc showing in the multiplayer list?

How can a new mission be created with the dedi-server too? It doesn't have mission creation functionality. . .

Has anyone got this server tool working? The instructions in the firts post are not written very well.. I can't actually get a server to run. The WebGUI constantly sits on "loading" (see image below) a mission. The server shows in the multiplayer list but the mission isn't showing. I cant get the server to actually load a mission. .. .

I agree with BOTH these two options. 1. Bombers and / or transport/ communications aircraft up at altitude. These would have to be AI. It takes quite a lot of mission maker effort to get this to work though. They have to have sensible flight plans, and you have to be able to either respawns flights when they get shot down, or to have a timetalbe in place that will ensure that there is a possibility that some AI will be operating up there at any time, or at least quite often during a mission. Doing this will also make the AWACS less vulnerable, becasue there will be other AI aircraft confusing the picture, beyond just the single AWACS aircraft we currently have - and it's really obvious when you get a bogey dope directing you to the enemy AWACS. 2. Short range anti-air is also really helpful. It worls in WW2 also. You pepper it around the small towns, next to bridges and other infrasructure around the map. None of these units show as "mission targets". They also don't give off big RWR signals which might normally make them SEAD targets. They're just there to discourage people from flying at low altitude. The main problem here is over-populating the mission and making it less playable (stutters, load time etc). However, on Storm of War, we've used a couple of hundred flak guns scattered around like this and mutltiple B17 formations (8 to 10 aircraft) without casuing problems so far. I would also add a third: 3. More spawn bases . . this goes for almost all servers though. Having everyone operate from a single field sets up a very narrow combat area. The narrow geographic spread forces eveyone lower and lower and combats always descend, and new aircraft keep piling in soon after takeoff.

Hi gfolks, Any thoughts on how mission design can be used to encourge more medium-high altitude flying on cold war? As we all know, success (at least in Air 2 Air) requires mostlly flying in the weeds. Part of this has to do with the difficulties in spotting contacts in DCS, however I am of the opinion that other factors compound this, i.e. 1. There is nothing, except for 1 x AWACS per side, to engage with at high altitude. There's no mission-imperative to be up there. 2. When airfields are only 100km or so apart, AND there's only 1 airfield to spanw from in a mission, there's little point climbing up to 8km or so, because it just un-necessarily extends time-to-combat 3. SAM sites are extememly powerful in an environment where SEAD operations are not really catered for, AND furthermore, the short range between bases increases the combat area that is covered by SAMS at altitudes over a couple of thousand feet, staing low enables getting in close 4. Most of the terrain isn't hostile to low flying aircraft. There's no-one shooting back up for the most part. We've had similar problems in the WW2 servers. But there are ways of incentivising people to climb up to altitudes that have been tried, and proven, to work. It remains to be seen if DCS can handle these measures without falling over on it's A**e though I think.

Hi Alpenwolf, Any chance you can have ships to attack on more missions? One thing I really love with the viggen is doing the anti-maritime runs. With all that water off to the west, the Caucasus map is pefect for long range maritime hunting. . . . .

I have the feeling you need to keep that text saved somewhere Fenrir.. you're going to have to reming people of this a thousand times...

Changelog is up, but no mention of Viggen . . https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=3891283#post3891283 What's going on?

If it's operation Husky, then that's July and August 1943. There is a big difference within 1943 . . . There are far too many aircraft which were used in Husky which are NOT in DCS (Beaufighter, P40, P39, P51A, Hurricane, Spitfire Vc & VIII and possibly some very early Merlin 61 powered IXc, A20, B25, JU52, Me323, Ju88, Me410, Do215, Bf 109G) In fact, NONE of the air-frames currently in DCS WW2 were used during operation husky.. so DCS might as well just start the whole WW2 project all over again if they're going to choose that particular time period and location. Anzio/ Gothic line makes more sense, if people really want Italy.

You can fly the Viggen on Cold War server too, plenty of people do. The mission layouts and target variations mean you get to employ a wide range of the Viggen's capabilities on this server. I only wish there were more anti-ship strike missions... I can nail 4 ships in one strike if it goes well. Some missions with 10 or more ships to sink in 2 convoys would be nice.... hint, hint

The little > markers which can be placed on the kneeboard map by the player to show current position. By spamming them you can also effectively show your flight path. I agree that it effectively kills navigational realism.

Completely agree Brigg. I'm all for new moduels to flesh out the WW2 scene, but I'd far rather have the existing stuff fully complete and in a sensible condition first. There are other places to go for "loads of aircraft", DCS is supposed to be about depth and accuracy.

Hey, guess what . . .