Exorcet

You can just change the controls to match MSFS, for the most part, as DCS inputs are customizable. There's no reason to change the defaults and that could negatively impact people using the controls as is. Moving around the cockpit with the mouse also works in DCS, you just need to use the command for it. Was it double middle mouse click?

You do need to setup the second install if you want it to match the first, but DCS saves a lot of information in the Saved Games folder and from there you can copy from one DCS folder to another. This won't always work 100% because updates sometimes change controls and things, but it should work most of the time. The Config folder contains module controls and sim options. Also backup your DCS folders in Saved Games before messing around with them just to be safe.

I very rarely update right away and actually have two installs of DCS. One for normal use and one to try the latest update. It's also possible change versions, including going backwards, with the DCS updater. So it's possible for you to stick to a specific version while also playing with others on the latest version through multiple means.

I don't use MIST, but you could do this with no scripting at all, or at least something similar. Spawn a bomber group with multiple waypoints and multiple switch waypoint triggered actions. Have it orbit at spawn and then trigger it to go to a specific waypoint when required. I don't know exactly what you're trying to do so this may not be a good solution, but it is a way to make a plane take a random route to an objective.

I was able to reproduce on the Caucasus Two versions of the mission. I tried to see if moving the disembark point away from the waypoint would help. With the disembark at the default location (on top of transport waypoint) the troops ran. Moving the disembark off to the side of the waypoint helped, at first. But trying a second time, the troops starting running again. I think part of the issue is the troops being too close to the transport on disembark. They sometimes slide away from the vehicle as if they are being pushed by its hitbox. Or maybe they are colliding with each other. test_embark_forever_run_black_sea_offset.miz test_embark_forever_run_BlackSea_offset.trk test_embark_forever_run_black_sea.miz test_embark_forever_run_BlackSea.trk

This is very much needed. I try to steer comments away from the user files section and on to the forum where I would actually see it, but most people comment in the User Files anyway. It can take me years to respond to something posted there as I have no way of knowing without checking everything I've uploaded.

The bug might be ever weirder. I made a mission to try to replicate no embark, I could not reproduce it. But it did reproduce forever run: I did not save that track, but I took the above screenshot. I also backed out and saved the mission first because of the previous issues with saves. Then I played the mission intending to save the track and everything worked as expected. Saving the mission might change how/if the bug appears? More testing, moving the mission editor camera so as to get the save because of changes prompt and then running the mission causes the bug to appear. The bug might appear when the save prompt does in the ME. test_embark_2.miz test_embark_2_success_after_saving.trk

I will try to recreate it, though just for my information is the intended way for disembark to work is that having a disembark task makes the transporting unit stop and unload, automatically, and then once all transported units are unloaded, it will resume the route? There is no stop condition or switched waypoint needed? I ask mostly because I've found ReFuAr waypoint for planes need a switch waypoint which seems unintuitive, unless that's also a bug.

Use switched condition triggers instead of Once. See this discussion for more information:

Yes, you can do exactly that. There is no one answer. Real aircraft are designed to complete missions with a specific task and take what they need to maximize success. While you can load a plane up with a ton of weapons that leads to being heavy and slow which can lead to being vulnerable and short legged. If you do want to take weapons to fight anything you'll probably want 2-4 air to air missiles, preferably AIM-120C and then fill the remaining stations with ground attack weapons like AGM-65F, Mk80 type bombs, or AGM-88 HARM missiles for protection against SAM's. There are a lot of weapons to choose from but some require other weapons, for example Paveway bombs require a TGP to be able to be lased, so I'd suggest you avoid them until you want to expand your weapon selection and mission complexity. Despite all I said there are some options to give you a more flexible experience: -DCS allows you to set unlimited fuel and weapons which will give you more flexibility in loadouts and lets you use low amounts of fuel so that you aren't penalized for carrying so much -DCS lets you jump into AI planes with R Alt + J. With this you can just fly more than one plane instead of trying to carry everything on one aircraft -You can command wingmen and nonwingmen (they are more complex to command than wingmen) to perform tasks for you, so you don't need to do everything yourself. For the type of mission you seem to want, you'll probably get a lot of mileage from the first two.

You can create any situation that you want with the Mission Editor, and this includes starting on the runway with the plane running or even starting in the air. If you don't want to create a full mission you can also load unprotected missions in the ME, find your plane, and set it up how you want. Be warned that changes can break missions so if possible try to check with the mission creator. The mission editor itself isn't hard to use when setting up missions. There is also a Fast Mission generator which might be perfect for you. Give it some inputs and DCS will populate the map with an autogenerated mission. The mission can be loaded in the ME to be customized further. To expand a little more, a lot of your questions are explained in the DCS User Manual that comes with the installation. It's a big manual but you don't need to read everything. You should also know about the user files where user created missions (and other things) are hosted for download. Some missions that fit your goals may exist: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/ DCS being a deep simulation will require some knowledge to setup properly. If you take a shot at setting up a mission in the ME or using the Fast generator, you could post it here and ask for more help in tweaking it. When it comes to setting difficult, not only will the AI skill matter but their equipment. To make it easier for a F-16 or F-18 you'll want to limit enemies to aircraft like MiG-23/MiG-21 or lower capability. Also avoid SA-10 and SA-11 SAM's and probably most IR guided weapons since they cannot be detected by the F-16/18.

In addition it might be nice to just have an emission option for some objects. That would allow you to place an emitting object and then copy it across the map instead of setting up many triggers and having to input many locations. The mentioned radio tower would be an example, although since it's a static object and not a ground unit it might not be straight forward.

My understanding is the orientation for the object rotates with the object. The x, y, z after the p are telling you where the x axis, y axis, and z axis of the object are pointing. This is 2D and not 3D, but the p would refer to the blue lines while the x would refer to the black x orientation line and y would refer to the black y orientation line (though I think that's actually z in DCS). The x and y are vec3 because you need the three components along the global x, y, z coordinate system to define them.

You could just not read the posts. I think there could be some improvements made here, but limiting the ability to contribute doesn't sound helpful. If people had more guidance on what was realistic or what aligned with ED's goals then you'd probably see more focused on discussions. ED has tries this to an extent with the tags for threads, which is a helpful feature, though personally I think we still need feedback on ideas provided. Of course there is the other side that ED can't read millions of a posts per day. We do have the rating system for threads. I wonder if it would be possible to use it to generate a poll for most favored ideas at least partially automatically to help people focus on setting priorities for certain ideas.

I run DCS normally, non Admin. I used have it installed in Program Files but that caused an issue with not receiving all parts of an update. I've moved it to its own folder (and drive) since then.

In a situation like this it may be useful to run the autostart (LWin + Home) or to jump out and then back in to your plane (RAlt + J). The former will automatically do the start up process and you might see what you did differently. In this case if the switch was being set to test, you might have noticed the autostart moving the switch in a different direction. Plane jump will force a cold plane to be fully started if you jump out and then back in, which might have revealed that the switch was in a different position than you were setting it. Keep these in mind for future issues as they can be helpful for debugging your process.

This is odd. Replaying the track it works. Loading the track as a miz and playing the mission it breaks. Try loading through the ME: Notice Troops running at 8 knots, second image the group leader remains fixed in the correct position, all other troops running into the distance. This is the same track, just loaded and resaved as a miz file.

I had one as well, didn't attach it last time. F-16_Climb_performance.trk

I know it's only a request right now, but would this be for all parked aircraft or would it be an option we can set on a per mission basis? I'd imagine in some cases you might not want the chocks in place (like QRA).

On replaying the track they board, disembark, and then don't run for some reason, acting as I would expect. I'll have to try to make a new track later.

In fairness and as someone who would be interest in fly from the water, the lack of water seems to be more about the land between the intended map area and the water rather than the water itself. I don't know specifically what DCS's map limitations are so if ED says it's not possible I'll have to defer to them. It does make sense that the ground between would have some cost. Though on the other hand, a compromise could have been water on the southern edge. Still we do have the ability to fly from the Gulf to Afghanistan with the load map function. If you don't want to buy the Gulf Map, you can make do with Marianas. So it's not completely off the table.

Depending on how many things need to be turned off it might be best to setup a "debug mode" with multiple flags. The idea is that one master flag at the top of the trigger list turns debug mode on or off so that you don't have to keep track of flag calls you've added elsewhere in the trigger list.

If it will take time to investigate this in full, could I get an answer on the intent of how jumping should work? Is the loss of route an intended change or a bug? I don't see the benefit of the former but I'd at least like to know if this was done intentionally. Thanks

Basically more detailed modeling for ships. I agree, though they can be quite complex to model in full. As far as waypoint actions why not a decision matrix for all the aspects on the ship that we can control? So for example: Use primaries? Yes against large ships, No against small ships Use secondaries? Yes against large ships, Yes against small ships Use radar? Yes when no friendly ships within 20 miles etc

Those things are related but that isn't exactly what I was talking about. Even once we have a DC I'd still like to make missions. What I want is some help in making them less scripted or on rails because I want more reasons to be on guard when flying in or out, or performing whatever the objective is. Though even the DC itself should be a great addition because it should at least elevate go here bomb that, go there shoot those to being less repetitive (ie not flying the same exact mission over and over). I don't like it when I can memorize the solution to a problem, at least a problem that I've willingly put myself against, because that makes it boring after not too long. Also the DC doesn't have to be limited to the most straightforward missions, though we'll have to wait and see what comes out of it. If coupled with AI improvements including things like better communication between players and AI then I can see a lot more mission types coming into play. I also want more assets in DCS and I agree with a lot of what you say here, we just have different levels of priorities. I've had mission with civilian aircraft in them already. Yes the Yak is overepresented in those missions compared to reality, but as far being able to create that kind of mission, it is doable even if it's not ideal. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely want 777's and A320's in DCS. I'd even pay for flyable versions, but in my experience while more assets are needed they aren't the primary shortfall of DCS. Even in this case AI and other improvements would also be warranted just as much as new assets. I've requested in the past for features like being able to communicate with AI pilots visually or to have fogging of AI aircraft windows specifically for airliner intercepts. Those things could greatly enhance missions that don't revolve around combat even if the plane selection for them is limited. Funny enough I've also considered modeling to create assets for DCS. It turns out that graphic design and 3D modeling is a lot rougher for me than numbers based CAD so it's been a slow learning and it has also been competing with other projects for my time. Still maybe in the future I could try to provide some new building objects to ED as I'd certainly like more of them and I'd expect they'd be easier to do than vehicles. I fully support the effort to increase the number of assets in DCS though I think part of the reason why this thread went the way it did was that people have different priorities and goals for their user experience.