NeedzWD40

You should be able to easily set those units en masse to not shoot ground units via a quick script: --set getGroups(1,2) to getGroups(2,2) to set blue side units to not shoot ground targets for i, d in pairs(coalition.getGroups(1,2)) do if (d) then d:getController():setOption(28, 1) end end This will set all ground groups for a particular coalition to not shoot ground targets. A bit heavy handed but it might be what you need.

I probably should've cleared out the hooks location, as all I did was get the mods out of that folder. I'm not convinced that mods couldn't be a potential source of the issue, but the crash still followed in the test mission without them. Thing is, the stability is inconsistent, as sometimes with mods it crashes and sometimes it loads up fine; without mods is the same. The only consistency I can find is that ensuring no ground unit has 0 ammo magazines keeps things stable on the weapons.dll front. In any case, attached is a crash log without mods. dcs.log-20251129-013734.zip

I can run a separate go without mods later (I'm in the middle of mission editing right now) as that was my original thought. I had one mod that I thought was the issue and removed it but it remained, so I plugged it back in. It wasn't until I thought maybe some changes from the CH assets pack might've been the issue, but changing those units didn't help. It wasn't until I noticed that I hadn't altered the T-90 payloads from the previous mission iteration that I put the the two together since the loads were exceeding magazine capacity. A different mission had no such units but did have 100mm guns with the AP ammo removed which also resulted in a crash. Adding ammunition to these magazines (even 1 round) resulted in no crashes, so a quick test with the mission in the first post to test the theory seemingly proved it. It's entirely possible mods are the culprit, but I was tearing my hair out trying to figure out the stability problems and was at my wit's end when I tried the above. Set a bunch of my mission editing back, so testing without mods will have to come later.

When I tried with a CH-47F, they would fly over the point and then do a happy flight clear across the map, land at a random airfield, and then deployed it. The Mi-8 took off without the cargo, flew to the point, landed, then blew up.

Description: setting a ground vehicle with a selectable magazine to 0 results in an access violation of weapons.dll and subsequent crash at Spawn Units phase of mission load. How to reproduce: Create a mission and place a vehicle with a magazine (M1A2, T-90, T-80) and set magazine to 0, then launch the mission. Mission will crash and log will show weapons.dll violation. Test mission and crash log zips attached. dcs.log-20251128-213121.zip Ground Vehicle No Magazine Crash.miz

It's tedious but you'll have to open the "mission" file in an editor like Notepad++ (you can try Visual Studio) and find the Routes table for a bunch of the ground groups, then clear them out/set them to one point. You shouldn't need to do this for ALL groups, but if you do it for enough to bring the total table under control, you should be able to open the mission in the editor and do an easier fix.

I can confirm this, also happens with the mixed rocket pod loadouts.

While I suspect that the E model's blades might give a bit of help (among some of the other differences), a presence of a full color ADI doesn't exactly make a lot of difference in the ability (or inability) to perform acrobatic maneuvers in a helicopter. It's probably the skateboard he tucked behind the seat. Makes all the difference in the world.

Same reason why ASPI isn't documented in the "published" manuals for the AH-64. Nor why the AH-64A manuals available don't document TXARNG's CMWS installation. Or why the AH-1F manual documents AVR-2s when you can't find any official US Army aircraft equipped with it. Things vary from unit, to deployment, to timeframe; equipment is pulled from post-deployment birds to go onto deploying aircraft for availability, quantity, or any variety of reasons. Try as they might, there's not a monolithic block of standards that every aircraft must always be in, properly documented and up-to-date. Thus, you'll see mishmashes of UH-60As with uprated engines, CMWS, and sugar scoops along side a UH-60M with the latest fixings. How you implement such a system? Easy; you don't need to know exactly how the wires are routed and the frequency range of the sensors. You make an abstraction over the available information and get something that works similar enough in the game. You're not going to get a 1:1 representation and that's pointless for this anyways, but you can get something that gets close enough. For something like CMWS, there's enough info out there to make a pretty reasonable guess, particularly so for DCS since we already have multiple modules with it anyways.

Yup. You can adjust whether the missile curves left or right by putting the seeker on the opposite side you want it to curve to, but it won't affect anything beyond that.

Actually? No, it just abstracts it with the left or right curved flight path. Right now, it inaccurately always uses that mechanic regardless of LOBL or LOAL.

It is, but you're still at the mercy of how it works and ED's implementation of it. Think of it more like the way an AIM-120 works, except in LOBL you're pointing the seeker to a certain place in your field of vision. It's like a flashlight and the bleed over can sometimes reflect more on other objects, so those are what the seeker grabs. There's flaws in how the missile is currently implemented but unfortunately the documentation I have isn't distro A so I can't share it, though I suspect ED already has that documentation anyways. None of this affects this use case though, as the <2.5km behavior is about right (with some caveats).

If the BMP is nearby the target, the missile seeker can still acquire it instead of the intended target. If you utilize the link functionality, TADS should snap to the target that the missile is tracking, which would confirm the actual target. Even then, it's not a guarantee and you're best off shifting to SAL if you want precision or moving around to give the seeker a better view of the target.

CPG has both chaff and flare on the cyclic; the grips are identical across crew stations. Page 123 in the DCS manual if that's your thing.

Yes, you can do both and you do get auditory warnings from CMWS in the front.