Druid_

There is no such function within DCS I'm afraid. You can return the coalition of an object but it's not possible to return any information from the target displayed in the TGP in the current version. Out of interest why do you require the coalition of the target in your targeting pod? I.e what are you trying to achieve.

Pre-setting the rudder trim is not so much to combat the rudder forces on take-off but to enable the aircraft to be in trim for the initial climb. IRL I never did this on piston aircraft as the loads on the rudder was feedback that I wanted. After. A while with experience you smoothly set the power and introduced rudder to a known position. Small movements were then applied to maintain the centreline. The main problem I have is with the slipstream effect over the rudder (ineffective, try a stall turn at 60 kts) and the natural longitudal stability of the P51 at present. After mishandling lifting the tail and creating a longitudinal PIO (Pilot Induced Occilation) the effects increase in magnitude to some degree even if you reduce power & neutralise the controls.

There isn't a resupply option at the moment. I believe the warehouse system is a work in progress and will expand along with the MIss Editor in future patches.

Ok I see. Well after destroying the house we returned to the tasking point but received no further tasking. I'll take a look at your triggers and see where we went wrong with this one. Also it would be nice if it were possible to ask for a repeat of the tasking message. You can use slmod ( or the F10 menu on host) to do this.

Had some fun flying this. Just a suggestion ... its unrealistic to expect every unit (incl all infantry units) to be killed before the task complete trigger is true. You could spend ages hunting around for a single infantry unit to kill before you can move on to the next task. There is a %dead trigger you can use instead of Group dead which is more useful imho. Unless we missed something, we were tasked with taking out a house with an enemy general in it. Which we did. Why were we expected to take out all of the air defence units afterwards?

Its probably made in China and costs 99c to manufacture. Its an awful design and sorely needs an update. I'm tempted to buy 3 small LEDs and make my own aluminium version when this one finally breaks.

This issue has been around for a while. As there are so many viariables involved (e.g. Number of triggers, moving units, static units, aircraft & helis) it is impossible to give a more exact number unfortunately.

If your doing a modern version then you'd better create a L1011 TriStar and maybe a VC10 tanker. I created a TriStar model in Ver2 of 3D studio many moons ago but god only knows where it is now. It might be on an old floppy disk, shame I dont have a drive to read em.

Try enabling port forwarding on a different port (say 10300) and set it in the DCS network options. See if it appears now. This worked for me. It doesn'tlike 10308 for some completely unknown reason. It should work fine on 10308 but doesn't. Its not blocked by my ISP either as I checked.

Thanks for that although it doesn't really answer my question (or maybe I should read it a third time). It concentrated mainly on the elevator. Setting rudder trim for take-off is not to reduce rudder forces for take-off but rather to have the aircraft in-trim for climb out. I feel I currently do not have enough rudder applied (especially initially) for take-off and when slow speed manoeuvring it has little to no effect. Try a stall turn at around 60 kts IAS and you will see what I mean.

Just wondering is propwash (a.k.a swirl or prop slipstream) effect, specifically over the rudder & elevator surfaces modelled currently? The reason I ask is that currently it doesn't feel as though it is and makes for some interesting manoeuvres at low airspeeds.

I thought DCS World contained all of the terrain, AI & static models etc. So surely the next A10c patch should be a smaller file which I can install & then delete my old DCS a10 folder? Or quite possibly I have misunderstood.

The cheap pasta (thermal paste) as you call it has nothing to do with it http://www.eteknix.com/news/ivy-bridge-heat-problems-remain-even-after-ihs-removal/ If you have a sandy bridge and running at 5Ghz then there really is little reason to upgrade to ivy bridge unless you want to consume a little less power and/or take advantage of some of the Z77 chipset/ivy bridge features. I'm running a i7-920 so will probably jump on this intel 'tock' especially since my daughter needs a new pc (I.e. my current one). I like the features and processor power available on this cpu & z77 chipset.

I think it would depend on the layout of the course. I was wondering if it might be worth checking that they go through each gate in order. Missing a gate can then display a message "gate x missed, 10 sec penalty" or whatever. I was toying with adding each players lap times/ fastest lap times / race time & fastest race time but it means changing the way you have done the triggers. I don't like the idea of height penalties as going high or diving low is part of the tactics. It also adds the vertical element to the race. Maybe have certain gates with a height restriction to provide some close proximity excitement?

Thats not a run in and break to land, thats more like an overhead or deadside join. 250kts seems a little on the low side too. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the term 'break' as it applies to the USAF. Only I would add that deploying the speedbrakes in the hog isn't necessary as G alone will be sufficient to bleed the speed (it's considerably slower than a F-15 !). On a Friday afternoon just before 'happy hour' (i.e. Bar1 arrival) this would be the standard break (btw the Jet Provost in the vid below is similar in many ways to the A10)

Don't know about the A10 boys but in the RAF we flew the break at 500ft level turn. Idle throttle using G and speedbrakes to bleed speed. Never saw any USAF aircraft break into circuit at 1500 ft unless ATC requested you to position behind another aircraft already late downwind. The reason for flying the break at low-level is because its intended to be an enemy avoidance procedure. Min time approaching airfield, min time at slow speed and min time in circuit pattern over airfield staying within the defensive perimeter.

By smaller I meant, smaller than the gate_hit zone which must be made bigger and placed after the gate so that it protrudes out from the gates less (minimising false gate hit in turns). Gate_miss gates around the current size should be about right. EDIT: Just played around with resizing and repositioning trigger hit-zones and I think the accuracy is probably enough without adding trigger miss-zones tbh. Just playing with lua now to add some timing to it. EDIT2: The only way to output Lua timing variables to the screen via messages is through Speeds Slmod at the moment. Done some of the work with this using the Lua timer function but have to ask if its really worth it. Do we want individual race times and/or lap times? Grimes, looking at your triggers. Is it possible to hit the same gate twice and miss one gate later on without penalty? I'm just thinking of people going around if they miss a gate and hit other triggers in the process.

The only problem I can see Grimes (can't test as haven't DL'd P51) is that its possible to activate the gate triggers without actually going through the gates. For example the tight left hander at 2c could be activated but fly wide right of gate, same again with the right hander at 3a. The only non-lua solution I can think of entails bigger diameter gate_hit trigger zones plus smaller gate_miss trigger zones either side. This means much more trigger checking of course, but hey in the name of accuracy and all that :)

Why not add a penalty gate at end of starting straight that adds say 10 secs to a lap. & if you miss more than 2 gates in 1 lap then penalty is 1 extra lap. Just a suggestion. There is a lua time function you can use if necessary. In fact it would be useful for things like fastest lap, fastest overall & average lap speed. (Must try and get to Reno this September. Hope the FAA/NTSB don't dumb it down too much.)

That may well have been the same BTR that gave us the same end result. Did Badger make a TIC call or anything when the BTR engaged? I usually make a switched condition -> on unit damage -> radio call. You can add a couple of flags to vary the TIC calls made too. At least this way you can take your eyes off em for a second or two. Would be nice to be able to have convoy take cover whilst they wait for assistance but know how heavy and tedious the ME can be to do this. One for the wishlist.

No problem with the mission since you adjust your tactics according to the threat. We found the manpads that we were given the grid for, we baited and destroyed all of the AAA and SAMs up to CP Charlie. All was going well then having taken our eyes off the convoy for a mere 30 seconds it was destroyed. There were no 'contact' calls from Badger and when I flew over no apparent enemy. Hence my assumption that a Hind or SU25 snook in and took em all out in one pass. Some you win, some you lose. It was just a little frustrating to lose the convoy without any TIC calls being made which would be the situation if it happened for real. For a mission with such a large realism factor to it, it was a little disappointing. Other than that its a great mission as usual by Joyride.

Great mission. Ran it with 3 in MP and convoy survived until just before BRAVO. We were orbiting and slowly clearing ahead of them when suddenly they were all destroyed. No radio calls warning us they were under attack and no sign of enemy vehicles. Maybe it was a sneaky Hind or something but heck it was all over so fast. Will run this one again when my real life Roster permits, once again great effort Joyride.

The size of the convoy and the type of units in the convoys affect the 'elastic band effect'. Also the speed of the convoys affect the yo yoing if the slowest unit is unable to achieve the ME set speed. I usually set a convoy to a maximum size of 6. Use triggers to have one convoy group follow another at a set distance. Convoys are frustrating and sometimes expermimentation is the only answer. Welcome to the joys of mission building :)

Regardless of LOS issues the JTAC should always appear in your comms menu (if you key the correct radio). There can then be a few otherr problems 1) You can't hear him due to LOS or range issue 2) You can hear him but he doesn't assign a target due to LOS from FAC to Tgt 3) The target isn't yet activated OR the JTAC is activated prior to the target (use AI ON/OFF on tgts instead). 4) The FAC/JTAC isnt set up correctly (i.e. callsign, freq and tgt assign in advanced options). I did encounter a similar frustrating problem in a miz build and it was due to him being assigned multiple targets and he did not have LOS to one of them screwing everything up. To check LOS use F7 and pan around to make sure, sometimes in the mountains the smallest undulation screws up the LOS.

Depends on which side of fence in the marketing department you lie. You will always get the wingers and quoters. However the interest gained through advance notice of upcoming products may well outweigh the negative aspects associated with release date delays. I guess ED will notify everyone in good time. Maybe its a question of timescale to product release.