burritto

Plus 1 for this request. It would add to the flexibility of the map for both SP campaigns/missions, and especially for MP.

Please, please release this as a hotfix as soon as possible.

Player track file for the Storm of War server for one of the crashes this evening (April 18th) in case it helps. I had joined the server just a few minutes before the crash. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AE9ULqHLV5w5UgCRFCru7CeMC_b_CuhK/view?usp=sharing In this case, the server crashed concurrently with an ejection by one of the players (Mebisis), which interestingly was an ejection from a spitfire while on the ground (similar circumstances to another server crash on Storm of War the previous day). External views are not available as standard on SoW, so you need to enable them in the trk file via the mission editor - I have uploaded the original untampered file here.

This is still a bug in our current Open Beta. Track attached. I setup a mission on Normandy. Standard pressure setting and temp of 10 deg C, with both axis and allied aircraft (109, 190A8, Spit and P51) at Needs Oar Point (close to sea level) and Evreux (slightly elevated). Setting QNH gives a reading close to airfield elevation in all but the 109, likewise setting QFE gives a reading close to zero in all but the 109. Excuse the P51 at Evreux - for some reason that one on a parked hot slot spawns in with the parking brake off and high throttle set. altimeter.trk

That would certainly explain it, thank you. It's prompted me to look at the control API doc in the DCS install and a few more options to try. Thank you.

Good evening to the DCS collective brain trust. I'm trying to write a script that would delay players hopping between coalitions during the course of a mission. I have a script that works for the entire mission, building tables of data that then get's cleared when the next mission loads, but the next iteration is using some form of timer function to set a delay instead (say 30 mins in spectators or off the server before you could change). I've tried both using timer to build tables (my preferred option at the moment) and the schedule function, but they both fall over when I call any timer functions. My syntax at the moment is: local timenow timenow = timer.getTime() I would then use the timenow variable to fill values in tables where needed. My expectation was that timenow = timer.getTime() would return a numerical value that I could then store against the UCID and then later compare against a new value returned by a new call of the timer.getTime() function. But I just get the following error in the DCS log 'attempt to index global 'timer' (a nil value)' and the function falls over. The timer function call is part of a callback that is hooked onPlayerConnect and OnPlayerChangeSlot . I'm sure there is a very obvious reason why this doesn't work this way, but I can't see it for staring at it. I'm running my multiplayer instance from the New Server option on the multiplayer screen for now rather than a dedicated server, if that would make a difference. Thanks all.

I've just checked mine in the CC at night and everything is working as it should as far as I can tell (latest Open Beta). Are you using the following line in your autoexec.cfg, "options.graphics.stereo_mode_use_shared_parser = true"? If you are, that could well be the cause. It's still WIP and not recommended by ED for use for that reason. I tried it but had too many bad visual effects to continue using it (using a Rift S), even though it did help framerate

No, it looks to be right on the money. http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a8-level-speed-13nov43.jpg

Great video and some nice ideas for small things that would really help content creators make DCS WW2 feel more fleshed out, both for single player and multiplayer. Thank you.

I can confirm, and the bug seems to affect all AI, not just AAA units. Attached is a link to a folder with 2 track files. In the first just after mission start I fly directly over and attack ground units numerous times and they do not fire at any stage. In the second light levels are much higher and I fly directly over an enemy ship, enemy airfields and attack a bomber formation - none of the AI engage at any stage. The same issues were affecting players in all aircraft types, from both coalitions. https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1C4KbfBbKLT8RNDoOX9B3F5BGhvHcOj3Y?usp=sharing

Yes please ED. This would really help those building MP missions for WW2.

I'm getting the same today. I'd updated to the latest Open Beta when it first came out with everything working fine until I tried to start up DCS just now. Same warning with Bullguard anti virus having installed the latest virus definitions.

Here are a couple from Mission 2 of The Big Show

You should be able to select A-G Guns using the button below the guarded selective jettison button on the PCA (and can then select LEN for slow rate of fire on the button on the top row of the PCA), and then select the HUD into A-G Mode by hitting the Special Modes Fwd, in the same way you now do with bombs and other A-G weapons. Using HOTAS to select the gun will select it as an air to air weapon and put the ac into A-A mode, where Special Modes Fwd has a different function.

With regards to what Pikey was saying, I would expect that an AWACS aircraft that was Link capable would indeed classify tracks and that these would appear on a fighter's screen as hostiles. In much the same way that a call from these AWACS aircraft call hostile aircraft, though the SA building is so much easier with a picture in front of you. In the case of multiplayer, you would have the option of not having an AWACS for those automated calls (and datelined tracks), or having it. I guess if you wanted an AWACS not to contribute to the picture (by having it manned by someone rather than the AI), then you would want the option to put the AWACS on a different L16 Net, which will come down to how well the datalink is modelled. Given that on multiplayer you may want L16 capable aircraft on different sides, I would hope that different nets would be an option.

It seems a very common misperception that IFF is able to be used as a sole means to declare someone hostile but this is very rarely the case. The decision to declare an aircraft/track as hostile will depend upon the rules of engagement in force, which in turn will depend upon the situation. They are 'operator' decisions, not technological ones. A positive response to IFF will generally mean that the track is a friend, but a non-positive return just means that the status of the track is unknown. It could be hostile, or neutral, or even friendly (as your interrogator may be unserviceable, or their transponder unserviceable). The confusion is worsened when people refer to the HUD symbology on the F/A18 for IFF response as either friend or hostile - it should start as Unknown, and then if there is a POSITIVE response to IFF interrogation it would change to friendly, but UNKNOWN would be the default state. Other methods of NCTR may aid the declaration of hostile, if for example an aircraft type is only operated by one side or the other (which is often not the case). This potential for confusion could even apply to visual ID, if an aircraft type is operated by both sides. But overall, it would be an operator's, decision taken with the help of the technology, on whether an aircraft is hostile, friendly or unknown (unknown should be the default until decided otherwise). Self defence aside, ROE would decide if the operator able to make the decision was in the fighter, or in the command aircraft/position. I do not know if the buttons on the displays referred to above are filters, or a means to declare a track. Or if they are used to classify a track, whether that information is sent to others on the datalink and into the recognised air picture. To me, they look like filters. My own experience from Link 16 operations was that only command units (for example AWACS or GCI) had the ability to declare any particular track as hostile, and we as fighter aircraft would output tracks as Unknowns. Our tracks may have then subsequently been classified by a command unit as Hostile, and would be correlated on our in cockpit displays. If we had a valid IFF response from a radar track, then those would generally be passed as a Friendly by our system. That was from an older RAF system no longer in service, so I don't know if things have changed in more recent times.

I played through the mission last night and really enjoyed it - thank you so much for spending the time to create it and for sharing it. It really did remind me of real life Red Flag missions all those years ago (back in the '90s for me). I didn't bother with the tanker but took a leisurely cruise up to the hold and it worked out well - the hold and the build up of anticipation waiting for the push especially reminded me of the real life deal, with other formations floating around near 'student gap', and all the chatter with the leading formations.

If there is still space I'd love to join. New to DCS and the F86 so easy meat! Burritto-F86

I'm very new to DCS but really looking forward to this map set. I spent many detachments flying down there and although the area is quite small in aviation terms, there is enough variety to make it interesting (especially if you include newer facilities). If there is a way to keep everyone happy with both options, then that is great but otherwise, I do think including RAF Mount Pleasant is the most sensible way to go. Having a single 4000ft runway would be quite limiting and Stanley's runway would be too short for the majority of fast air in DCS (it had to be extended and fitted with arrestor gear to allow for Phantom operations post conflict, and even then Harriers remained in some capacity as it was still too short if there was a crosswind). Including Mount Pleasant airbase, and possibly also the facilities at Mare Harbour and at the mountain radar sites would provide much more flexibility for scenario creation.