Speed

Did you buy a module on your account, and then give the serial number to Jette? Without logging into digitalcombatsimulator.com, when I try to buy a module, I get this: As I understand it, UCIDs are tied to your digitalcombatsimulator.com account. Not sure how your activations and digitalcombatsimulator.com accounts are supposed to tie together... Let's think... how do you prevent someone from just re-registering on digitalcombatsimulator.com and logging into the master server with a new account to circumvent server bans? The answer is to somehow also associate UCIDs with your activation keys, I think. So using modules purchased under the same digitalcombatsimulator.com login will result in you having the same UCID, regardless of what login you actually use. Anyway, I don't know how this works actually, I'm just guessing, but it seems logical.

If all else fails, maybe you could try contacting c0ff via PM. Tell him you run a large public server and you are suddenly starting to experience these master server disconnects. Include a sample of your dcs.log file starting just before it starts disconnecting. Ask him what kind of things can cause this problem. Maybe c0ff will have the time to respond... but he is very busy.

Why not just cut out the entry and paste it into another file? You can always paste it back in. Be sure to back up your ban lists before you modify them manually though. Otherwise, if you mess something up, you'll lose your whole ban list.

OCD therapy

It is likely machine-specific... like something with your firewall or internet connection. Could definitely be a master server thing though. You did not specify what happens, or what your problem looks like. I've never seen a master server connection lost problem, so could you describe what happens? Does your game crash? Or does like a window pop up and say "connection to master server lost" or something? Please, fully describe the problem. I need to know exactly what happens on the server side when you have this problem. It doesn't sound like you have a crash, but for some reason you are including crash logs? What's going on?

A few months ago, I decided to create a "radio station" that would resemble one of the GTA radio stations, basically. We could have fake adds for things like "Digital Combat Farming Simulator", or I could rip some fake adds from GTA; instead of ABC or CNN radio news, it would feature Onion radio news; instead of real songs, it would play stuff like "White and Nerdy". The radio's callsign would be WRZN, the Warzone. The sounds would be compressed using either a very high compression .ogg or a GSM .wav codec, so I could get about 30 or 40 minutes into 3 or less MB. Anyway, this is all very doable, and could be a fun diversion for pilots on long ingress/egress flights. Unfortunately, with all the other stuff I had going on, I was never able to finish it.

Will you have human slots available on red too? You need to- it will up the tension for blue aircraft considerably. I tend to think that the 104th formula may in fact be one of the best ways to do a symmetrical air-to-air mission. However, I personally favor asymmetrical scenarios, and so do significant portions of the community. Undoubtably, a significant portion of the community favors your symmetrical mission format instead. I just hope that the option to select an asymmetrical player-vs-player mission actually EXISTS one day. All your issues are easily solvable, for an asymmetrical mission, by making a fun objectives that can accomplished without humans in opposition. One of the balancing factors IS to use AI aircraft to make up for a lack of humans. The focus of an asymmetrical mission IS NOT air to air- air to air is just one component. So how do you make it fun still? Say that an AI SEAD flight takes off. Once airborne, a call will go out, asking for any humans to come escort it. BRA can be sent individually to all humans, directing them where the AI SEAD flight is. If no humans respond, then a set of AI aircraft can escort it instead. So if only a few people are still on the server, then instead of everyone flying around bored, action still goes on. But if people are actually ON the server, then people get to fight people instead of AI aircraft. For red side, since air-to-air is more limited, a lack of human pilots will not be felt as severely. In the end, the best air to air action might occur on your symmetrical air to air server. Those who prefer (what usually turns out to be) relatively structureless air-to-air combat, that is, however, guaranteed to be player-vs-player, will have the most fun there. However, for those who want to see a more realistic scenario (that still has a strong air-to-air component) the most fun will be had on the asymmetrical mission server.

Instead of an air to ground only server, why not just an asymmetrical mission server? Have a mission where there's AI aircraft, plus slots for human F-15s, A-10s, Ka-50s, Su-25s on blue, vs. a handful of human Su-27s and several AI aircraft on red? Red wins if blue does not conquer them within a certain time frame. It will breed a whole different, and interesting, set of tactics. It might seem like the odds are stacked against red, but a smart pilot can still get kills and come home alive, by using tactics like running back to his SAM coverage, pouncing on stragglers, using ambush and hit and run tactics, etc. This all will serve to slow down blue, which is red's objective. Red has at best, only a very minor air-to-ground objective. Most likely, red has NO air to ground objective. Instead of slowing down blue, maybe red's objective could simply be to cause maximum casualties on blue. For example, blue could kill every single red unit, but still lose the mission because they lost too many aircraft. A comparable real-life analog would be Chennault's 1st American Volunteer Group, the "Flying Tigers". Though heavily outnumbered by the Japanese, they were still able to put up a good fight and slow down the Japanese. The majority of Japanese strike aircraft got through, but the Flying Tigers were a consistent pain in their side. After each mission, the majority of the 1st AVG pilots got home too. They adopted tactics to suit the asymmetrical situation they were in, and made a good fight out of it. It is possible to create a similar dynamic in DCS. Anyway, I could build such a mission, and I would if I had any confidence it might actually get run. I've seen too many excellent force-on-force missions get built and never run by any servers for me to risk building one myself. IMO, I just think that the current 104th missions are so focused on symmetry that they are flawed. The majority of people I've talked to have said they would like to see ACTUAL red aircraft on one side, and ACTUAL blue aircraft on another- at least, the fighters. No more F-15s shooting down F-15s. Now, granted, the majority of people I've talked to are DCS pilots. I don't know what the traditional LOMAC crowd favors. It might be that they like the fact that the exact same aircraft are available on both sides. So, anyway, I think that if you are going to have two servers, I think it is better if one server dishes out the traditional 104th mission formula, while the second server features an asymmetrical scenario, similar to what I detail in my first paragraph. Just because the scenario is asymmetrical does NOT mean it is unbalanced! By tuning mission objectives and forces, you can have an asymmetrical scenario be very balanced. And even if it IS unbalanced, there is no reason why the side at a disadvantage cannot have fun either. Just make sure that the side at a disadvantage can still have some way to fight back, and people will have fun! Anyway, just my 2 cents. P.S.- also don't get me wrong- I think that the traditional 104th mission formula of extreme symmetry has a place- I do NOT think that such missions should go away. But I'd also like to see the asymmetrical mission concept get explored, because it has more appeal to us DCS pilots who want to see a more realistic scenario, and it has been completely neglected.

Yea, it can add extra excitement, but with the small client numbers, you will frequently get times where there is no one or hardly anyone to cover your back :(

Well, you can do it the easy way... or you can do it the triggers way :D

AFAIK, Group Alive Less Than was not meant to analyze the amount of life a unit has left- just whether it is alive or dead. Even if you follow Eddie's suggestion, Unit Damaged is just a boolean true or false as to whether the unit is damaged or not. You should forget triggers and use Lua. Read through the simulator scripting engine wiki to get an idea of what is available. Replace "cargo ship" with the actual name of your ship unit, then run this on a Continuous trigger: do local ship = Unit.getByName('cargo ship') if ship then local life = ship:getLife() local startingLife = ship:getLife0() trigger.action.outText('Ship\'s current hit points remaining: ' .. tostring(life) .. '\nPercentage of starting hit points: ' .. life/startingLife*100 .. '%', 1) end end Simple huh? You just use Unit.getByName to get the Unit object for your ship, then you just output the values of Unit.getLife and Unit.getLife0 on that ship. EDIT: I forgot to put *100 to convert the life/startingLife to a percent :doh:, fixed now

When you write a table in Lua like this: { 'Unit #1', 'Unit #2', 'Unit #3', 'Unit #4' } what you are really writing is this: { [1] = 'Unit #1', [2] = 'Unit #2', [3] = 'Unit #3', [4] = 'Unit #4' } Lua just lets you skip the process of specifying what table index to add each piece of data to- if you do not specify a table index to put your data at, it will just puts it at the first empty integer index (starting at 1). So basically, what this does in your code: {Blue_Fighter, Blue_Bomber}, is make a table that looks like this: { [1] = { [1] = 'Eagle 1-1', [2] = 'Eagle 1-2', [3] = 'Eagle 2-1', [4] = 'Eagle 2-2' }, [2] = { [1] = 'Toad 1-1', [2] = 'Toad 1-2', [3] = 'Toad 2-1', [4] = 'Toad 2-2' }, } Obviously, this is the wrong format for Mist- you made a table of tables, Mist requires a table of unit names. So you either need to merge the two tables, or make a single table that has all unit names from the start. HOWEVER, you might also be going about this all wrong. Mist uses the same unit able short cuts that Slmod does. So, let's say you want to make a table of unit names that includes all blue aircraft accept those named "Hawg11", "Hawg12", "Hawg13", and "Hawg14": { '[blue][plane]', '[-u]Hawg11', '[-u]Hawg12', '[-u]Hawg13', '[-u]Hawg14' } Please see the UnitNameTables section of the Mist guide for more info and examples.

Since it's not publicly visible, we can post anything we want in there, right? Edit: damn... you're already ahead of me... everything is locked down :cry:

The most pertinent information is Saved Games/Logs/dcs.log. Could you upload it after a failed attempt? A lot of people are having trouble with virus scanners for some reason this patch. Disable all forms of virus scanners, and try again.

Can you upload the mission? It will probably only take a second to spot the cause of the problem.

No, that's only for the latest internal Slmod version... for currently released Slmod 6.3, it's dofile('./Scripts/net/Slmodv6_3/SlmodConfig.lua') dofile('./Scripts/net/Slmodv6_3/SlmodMain.lua') dofile('./Scripts/net/Slmodv6_3/SlmodUtils.lua') dofile('./Scripts/net/Slmodv6_3/SlmodEvents.lua') dofile('./Scripts/net/Slmodv6_3/SlmodUnits.lua') dofile('./Scripts/net/Slmodv6_3/SlmodMenu.lua') dofile('./Scripts/net/Slmodv6_3/SlmodAdminMenu.lua') dofile('./Scripts/net/Slmodv6_3/SlmodStats.lua') dofile('./Scripts/net/Slmodv6_3/SlmodLibs.lua') dofile('./Scripts/net/Slmodv6_3/SlmodDebugger.lua') dofile('./Scripts/net/Slmodv6_3/SlmodTests.lua')

"Attempt to index global 'slmod', a nil value" nil means nothing in English. Likewise, in Lua, it also means nothing. Index means to get the value of one part of a Lua table. A global value is a value that is in the global Lua environment- hence, it is accessible everywhere inside Lua. So, now, just read the error message. See what it means? It means that you attempted to treat a non-existent value, named "slmod", as a table by indexing it. You attempted to index a nil value. You can only index a table value. Lua looked inside the local environment, found no variable called "slmod", looked in the global environment, found no variable named "slmod", then spat an error at you. Clearly, this means you do not have Slmod installed correctly. You must place the MissionScripting.lua file included with Slmod inside ./Scripts, over-writing the the MissionScripting.lua included with the game. Once you do this, it will work.

What if we just had a small, stealthy, cubesat-sized satellite following just behind each critical Chinese satellite, ready to deorbit it or damage it enough to put it out of service it in case of war? It keeps space from getting polluted with giant clouds of space debris. I guess you couldn't really hide its IR signature though, at least, not easily. Is that just a stupid idea, or might it be viable? I don't see why its not technically possible, but how easy would be for one of these to stay hidden?

Wow... I never knew about this. There was also an incident where a Patriot downed an F-18, killing the pilot, and another indicent where a Patriot went berserk and an F-16 had to put it down with a HARM: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-173545/F-16-fires-Patriot-radar.html Kinda reminds me of a rare Falcon 4 Allied Force where your AI wingmen would go rabid and try to kill you with guns. In one mission, I had to kill two of my wingmen when two of them went crazy at the same time. Maybe they didn't appreciate my leadership skills, if so, you can hardly blame them.

It's not damage to map objects that is detected, it's destruction of map objects that is detected. Hit or killed? You can use Slmod to set a flag when one group of units hits another group of units. Or you can use Slmod to set a flag when the number of dead units (dead either by being killed or deactivated) in a set of units exceeds a certain number. Both of those functionalities will eventually be ported over to Mist, but right now, they exist only in Slmod, or if you create it yourself through Lua. Here's how to set a flag when one set of units hits another set of units: slmod.units_hitting{ init_units = {'[all]'}, tgt_units = {'[red]'}, flag = 100 } I use the '[all]' unit table short cut to fill in init_units with all the units in the mission. I use the '[red]' unit table short cut to fill in tgt_units with all the red coalition units in the mission. Whenever a unit on red is hit by any unit, flag 100 is set true. -------------------------- To detect if the number of dead units on red exceeds a certain number, slmod.num_dead_gt{ units = {'[red]'}, numdead = 150, flag = 51 } If the number of units on red coalition that are dead exceeds 150, flag 51 becomes true.

It could actually measurably improve the habitability of Mars by delivering a trillion tons of volatiles to the Martian surface. A leading theory for how Earth got its oceans is cometary impacts.

I'm sure a frame of reference exists where that will be so, but it's probably not one at rest relative to Earth.:smartass:

The only person I saw actually implying that something might be wrong was the person who pointed out that the T-55 was slaughtering M1s. Personally, I fear that the US could have gotten complacent in tank design. They tell us the M1 is so great, but if it is so great, then where is its active protection system? Where is its anti-tank missiles?

Here is a simulation based on the latest data. Imagine how scary it would be to look up and see a comet literally filling the sky... eoXfKeJurl4#! I'm guessing that, if current predicitons hold, this will be the closest cometary pass to terrestrial planet in recorded history... what's with the solar system lately?!

CZ_BPK might have your problem. If you have the set frequency and set tacan after the orbit task, then he will not do either actions until he is done with the orbit task.