EvilKipper

You get a pop up from DCS, and I'm not sure I can detect correctly what's happening from lua when require fails. Also I kind of view this as the price you pay. If you need to reach for the big guns, then you're going to have to think about things like what lua dll you're linking to, and all sorts of other things too like is it safe to call this api function from my current threading context. It isn't something that can be entirely smoothed over, which is why we have lua. The ps1 is 2 lines, you can just copy and paste them into your powershell if you don't want to run the script. I wrote them in a script so I didn't have to constantly do that.

You need to link to the same lua.dll that DCS is linking to, otherwise you will get the smoke of very bad news. You can do that by making sure that you set the correct environment variables. There is a script setup_build.ps1 for windows, and setup_build.sh for linux that you can run to accomplish this. If you are not linking to the correct dll then DCS will say it can't require your dll, and what that really means is that the dynamic linker saved you from much worse consequences because it could not find lua51.dll As a general matter I would not recommend building native code mods for DCS unless you have a real need to do it. Fowl engine is very complex and thus benefits from strong static typing and compile time guarantees, some very specialized data structures, background threading and async for state saving, and vector optimized math libraries. Most scenarios don't need any of that and are better implemented as a couple of hundred lines of lua.

Currently the best example is https://github.com/estokes/bfnext, bflib is the core of fowl engine. It's sadly not a very simple example, but if you look at the Cargo.toml, and the bottom of lib.rs you can see what you need to do to build a server using dcso3.

you have to unsanitize your lua environment by editing Scripts/MissionScripting.lua

Two things to say about this. 1. Yes. Rust, C, or C++ are all better in that you have full control of the system and the full OS API available. As long as you are mindful of properly respecting API restrictions you can compute whatever you want on background threads. This is not news to anyone, people have been doing this for many years with DCS. 2. Lua is not "horrible", it is literally meant to be glue, it has an internal API that is very friendly to use from Rust, C, or C++. It is not hard at all to write a mixed application using Lua where Lua's strengths are advantageous, and Rust or C or C++ where those languages are advantageous. In fact if you study they way DCS in general is architected, you'll find this pattern over and over, lua as glue, loading various native dlls to do heavy work or complex logic. Also, shameless plug, if you want to use rust with DCS I've written a complete binding of the lua api. The crate is called "dcso3".

It is possible to work around this. If you want to dynamically spawn a farp, you can pre create any number of empty farp pads somewhere on the map in the mission editor with their warehouses empty. Then when you know where you want your dynamic farp to be, you spawn the farp pad with the same name as one of your "template" farp pads. This will effectively move that airbase to wherever you want. You can do this multiple times with the same farp pad. If you are calling world.getAirbases, be sure to check isExist, the previous locations will be returned from world.getAirbases but isExist will be false. Airbase.getByName will always return the most recent one however. Once you have created your "dynamic" farp you can get it's warehouse and use it normally just like any other airbase.

Event: 1v1 Squadron Name: REAPERS vFS Teamspeak/Discord: EvilKipper#6211 Contact person: REAPER 32 | EvilKipper Aircraft Selection. Mirage 2000C Pilots: USA - REAPER 32 | EvilKipper Event: 2v2 Squadron Name: REAPERS vFS Teamspeak/Discord: EvilKipper#6211 Contact person: REAPER 32 | EvilKipper Aircraft Selection. 2x Mirage 2000C Pilots: UK - REAPER 33 | Sting and USA- REAPER 32 | EvilKipper

How about a DD on the lake by Tblisi :lol:

Just from first principals, at mach 2.2, lowering the slats should result in any number of very bad outcomes. 1. Departure of the airplane from controlled flight 2. Failure of structure of the wing 3. Failure of the structure of the slats I obviously don't know what would actually happen. Maybe it's never even been done. Maybe the FCS won't let you do it even with the switch. But at that speed, if you flip the switch, and they actually fully extend, I very much doubt nothing happens. My suspicion is that probably whatever actuates them isn't strong enough to force them out at that speed. If that's true, then the animation is wrong. Still as it now I can force them out at 200 kts and then accelerate to mach 2.2. That is wrong, there should be more drag when they are out. I think the flight model, and the animation are just completely disconnected.

Ah, ok, I didn't know that. The behavior changed from the previous FM, I'm glad to see it accurately simulated.

You may be correct, though I want to point out that the mirage actually has very low wing loading for a high performance jet. At MTOW it's wing loading is 85 lb/ft2, vs the original 737's 117 lb/ft2, but you were not testing at MTOW, in fact there is no valid loadout in DCS that reaches MTOW as far as I know. At loaded, which is basically the CAP loadout it's only 68 lb/ft2, but you weren't testing at that loadout either, at the weight you tested the wing loading is only 51 lb/ft2. That's WWII prop fighter territory (109G-6 is 40 lb/ft2). Also you're simple delta equation probably didn't consider the leading edge slats. I wish we actually had the data, because I hate to speculate, but since we are speculating, I'll put on the other side of the scale that it's a really huge wing (actually just under HALF the area of the original 737), and aerodynamically it's a very clean shape. Maybe it actually is a pretty good glider. Maybe the numbers are plausible.

Visually the slats move when manually actuated, but flight characteristics don't change at all. E.G. I can fully extend the slats at mach 2.2 and nothing bad happens.

Referring to the Fly by wire gain mode switch, right under the cannon switch. Once you change the mode by switching it to down, you can never change back to normal mode. You can flip the switch all you want, and the switch will move, but nothing will change.

You beat me to it, LOL