Pikey

The way I'd see these things coming is if a thrid party committed to doing something with IADS like was metnioned as then it would get commercial support and we might see more features to SAMs. I'd also like to see a "SAM Simulator" in DCS. I don't think these would garner much interest from a wider audience and there are other issues, but its still a good wishlist item.

I think the idea of this would be good, perhaps the damage modelling can be the answer.

no the SSE doesnt enable us to have LOAL, the reaction time is set by the skill level and thats our lot. RWR's are way too accurate and sensitive for them to miss anything and when I tried to shut off a sam after launch it refused for the duration of flight. You can get very good results with the SAM waiting until the target is well passed the NEZ, that's somewhat frightening. If you want blind panic just fly low in a Tunguskas engagement zone.

Just to be clear whilst we are going down the JDAM example, people are still entitled to find these fun. Now, I don't get it, because there is an art in putting the "thing on the thing" that is engaging and visual. I'd challenge anyone to level drop your Mk82's from medium altitude level release - so that's not going to be a boring mission with a Mk82. Performing a perfect heart split attack with a friend and high fiving on the crossover before the rejoin is really cool fun! https://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3989643/pop-up-pattern what we don't have is a reasonably immersive reason to do this in the kind of conflicts you generally see which are with total air superiority, no air defenses above manpad engagement (if at all) and versus some tinpot dictatorship or 3rd world. Getting a bombing run close to target is a stick and rudder challenge and its fun (well it is when you don't have FBW or need a rudder). Level JDAM release at medium/high altitude is not an interesting challenge after you learned how to do it once. The JDAM is a just a metaphor. I want people to get online, play together, have fun, chuck bombs, blow stuff up and see the guy that shot them back. I want them to appreciate that you can enjoy the stick and rudder aspect, not that it's just a study sim where you learn the fascinating processes of modern warfare. I see that a lot of folks take the sim as a study sim, bury themselves in academic study offline and just say they don't have time to really get into it and we lose them whilst they really only had the AI and its shortfalls to measure their skills against. I don't think the modern planes are the vehicle that transitions people to fun - I don't know for sure, but i suspect it, because I have seen so many people get worn out of the modern jets and the months latest video on X system. Then having that system change later and have to go relearn it. I think the Hornet and A-10C offline players are the huge massive mountain of people to be tapped into that need to find their fun online or with stick and rudder play at least to fill out the servers and get sticky customers. The post isn't about me talking about what i want at heart, its talking about the difference between the way people percieve the sim and the game.

I think it's a different reason. I think if you linger around a few years, maybe more, you start to look for different things. The entry point would be A-10C, more recently Hornet, maybe F-16. The actual stats on who plays online was revealed fairly recently to be a very high proportion of players. These are the first findings and there is a sharp drop off on module uptake after those big ones. The sticky customers are trying different things, trying different servers, having done what these modules offer, but in a minority and yes perhaps vocal. I don't think its any more complex than that. Of course once new customers grow bored of the avionics videos every month, they leave the forums and whoever is left is hanging around looking for somehting new/different. The customers looking for the popular modern mods don't feel the need to look. But it doesn't matter what makes people tick, the idea of something new, is not a new idea.

I hope you find peace in your life and wish you cheer and happiness and whatever it is that you need to fix the pain with which you are in.

The scripting engine does not directly control the model in DCS. The level is much higher. Task oriented. The routines are closed in C derived language as this is a commercial simulation. The plugin environment is open to create a realtime movment - this is exactly what a module is, a plane you can control. But the input requires control via a directx input not a script, you cannot create some interface to steer your plane via Python natively. But you can try with a module and input, but I dont think that is what you want. At least from my understanding.

Exactly. The assets in the sim are old versions in the most part, no modern air defences, there is so much out of place but depending on context. With the incoming F1, A6, A7, Mig-23, F-5/Mig21 repolish, F-4 Phantom, possibly Mirage 3 from RB, Kfir and so on, the assets lend themselves to Cold War periods and at least people playing these will be able to recreate more of a correctly "assetted" ecosystem, whereas the modern jets are kindda standing out on their own being stuck as study sims for the offline crowd with no natural adversaries. We even suffer from this in WW2 with the 1942 Allied and 1945 Axis birds and a map that neither of them used, its crazy. Instead what we do have seems overlooked in favour of new shiny things for the younger crowd who want to fight in a bubble. Use what we have or hopes and prayers for what we don't, I'd rather play is some kind of cold war era against similar combatants than the desert meme in uncontested air space, others may vary of course and they do.

Reminder that the sentiment of my post was not about exclusivity, just where the benefits lie, especially in multiplayer adversarial gaming with a flight simulator. < This was the first line, but you missed it, presumably because you were trying to read between it and the next one for something that wasnt there. What that means for the people that took it absolutley the wrong way, is that there are advantages to this other era. Of course, people have to take it that someone of a different opinion has to be attacked. Bless you people. And your JDAMs. I did enjoy the defence of the JDAM. I don't agree that the JDAM is exciting or interesting and it was many years ago the excitement of being in a secure airspace, with no air defences at 25,000ft pressing one button and then going home, got boring for me. I guess you are somewhere back there, marvelling at the compexity of entering a coordinate. You misunderstand (many times in a short period of time). I'm not representing the communitys opinions, you and I are part of it. I am saying people of this community need to accept more variations instead of having "all planes in one mission to satisfy everyone". However, then you say I am narrow minded for wanting something we don't have much of. Then you attack something you don't know about my gift of my time to Eagle Dynamics. OK. I guess it must be a language thing. Please try to be nicer and a better human. Also don't try to read between my lines, you need to actually read my lines because there is nothing in between them, I am a very basic kind of person. Back on topic though, its good to see there is a firm interest with the cold war still, whether its specifically for 'multiplayer adversarial', or offline 'player versus environment'. And for those that like JDAMs, please, it's OK, no one will steal them. Speak to you next year and see how you feel then, ok?

People are starting to cotton on to this idea and its developed a stronger online movement since the original posting, with some really good servers. Reminder that the sentiment of my post was not about exclusivity, just where the benefits lie, especially in multiplayer adversarial gaming with a flight simulator. The same goes for the WW2 arena, except the jet era allows 'more and faster'. There's a lot to be said for "games and contests" where you see your opponent and dance with him a bit. Fox3 and lots of avionics have their place, I've enjoyed them, but it didnt sustain me, there is no way, most of the time, to know if your missile hit which is not satisfying. Imagine taking a football penalty and just as the ball is kicked you switch off the camera... Dogfights in the modern post 00's are also fun, but HOBS kindda ruins the point so they are restricted to 'contests'. If you have to restrict the weapon, other restrictions apply that are less understandable, like guns vs guns. It's in a bubble and unnatural. Fly By Wire in a computer simulation is like an spiritual opposite, they aren't immersing flight models, the Hornet is like driving a mouse across your screen. Flying the big F-14 and landing that, well the flying is fun because its quite tricky. Controlling your plane could be more challenging. Suppression of Air Defence only exists via scripting and I've persoinally taken that as far as it can go before a human is involved, its completely artificial. Destruction of air defence is another version of BVR combat. FIre, RTB, maybe not even any BDA. If the script is a radar shutdown, you will likely miss and repeat. Jdams are so boring people wrote songs about that. Bomb fuse delay is coming (imminently according to ED video)... lower, more dangerous and ridiculous feats with dumb bombs = more fun, more visceral, more talent, more fireballs, more giggles. One of the issues that prevent more widescale adoption of the older planes, in my opinion, is the multiplayer premise that anything other than the percieved 'best' is not worth playing. This comes from when people look at every module and pick in a bubble, it actually makes sense to be fair to them. First module? Pick a Hornet. Second module... erm, so you are telling me I have to pick something that can't do anything that this module can do? I get it. But no one seems to understand each module doesn't live in a world where all of them exist at one time and this is because many multiplayer servers are terrified of removing the modern airframes because they lose traffic. Suddenly your F-5 is looking hot versus the C101 when you realise you are the faster and safer one... We (the entire community) need to be comfortable with server restrictions We already had Fox2 nights for many years, a simple restriction we played for a long time, but we are artificially creating that and not limiting the airframes on servers to make it feel right. What we need are servers that exclude the popular modern modules to allow Cold War to really come alive with people using a thematic world that makes sense. Everything has it's place, modern, has it's place, WW2, has its place, but lets embrace servers who make authentic restrictions by supporting them.

Its not going to happen, it only could if the mods reached an acceptable current level and the person could give up their ip and prove its origin and ed wanted it. Modders dont want that hassle and ed dont want liability. There is huge cost in updating assets every time the tech changes. Just ask modders why they cant be bothered to update their older models. I have a ships showcase video....half of those dont work. Why? Eds fault? No. The sim moves forward. Modders come and go. Very few have what is needed.

Amazing project. World class.

Check out the squadrons forum and join the Eagle Dynamics Discord and plug into the social first by finding a group of people to talk about your chosen airframe - would be my first suggestion. A group and social will help you break down the huge task. You need to unlearn any concept of becoming proficient or good and learn to enjoy the discovery of learning itself and mastering a small bit at a time else you will go insane. Doing this on your own is possible but it could become difficult to find the motivation just from yourself. Sure, you might be very good at that, setting yourself a task to become capable at say "cold start" or taxi>takeoff>circuit>landing or learn the VIS mode of the AGM-65D, but if you don't set those types of tasks yourself, you would become lost as to the point of the excercise. WIth people around you, the goals will self sustain. For example you plan an evening flying doing XYZ - so you check out the lessons and videos on it beforehand. To extend the metaphor, if Warthunder is school, DCS is university. In school, the tasks are simpler, you have the books given to you, you read them in class. In university, you get a reading list and the odd lecture, but most of it has to come from you.

Sorry to hear that, your work was exceptional. The same issues exists on Invincible and HMS Ocean you just fall off the back. The easiest way to 100% reproduce is to take a cold start on Illustrious and then swap to a second slot on the same ship. Thereafter no matter how you spawn in, you are inside the ramp. With Invincible, Illustrious and Ocean out of the game I guess all hope is on Razbam for a carrier, I know nothing about that. Tarawa works fine sadly.

Same issue exists with the broken spawn position. The hot start locations in single player are inside the ski ramp and this location is also used when other planes are on the deck. This makes this mod unreliable for usage. Given its so damn good, it would be great if the spawn issue could be fixed. Many thanks.

can reproduce without skatezillas app, its seemingly just admin required.

I had this. Comes with launching DCS via SKatezilla's app. Presume related to no Administator. Works fine when launching direct. Not ideal.

It's rotated and zipped during normal usage when DCS starts up a new file is created. So, given this we know you want to do that during runtime, which is not possible because the file is locked.

incredibly underrated mod. Want to see more people landing props in the pitch black.

Chinese Asset Pack. Its an example of an addon developed outside ED that is permanent I'm only speaking from the position of common sense when I say that the reason you don't see ED incorporating things like statics is that if it is used in the base game and becomes a part of something that DLC is sold with it invites the concept that ED own the maintenance perpetually for those assets. The idea that in 2018 we have a static house and in 2021 after 3 years of being included in missions, no one has updated the textures to add the new FLIR tech and the items becomes unusuable, rendering 3 years of campaigns getting complaints, well thats something that bears thinking about, a static brick is a static brick for life, not just christmas 2018. For every asset included there is a cost attached. If assets never disappear and keep growing its one thing, but then to expect ED to hold the baby after kids grew up and made a nice house during their summer off, that's not happening. So that's why basically, I think anyway.

You could probably write a server side script that forces the client into a slot when one dies of either plane. That would make the mission require 4 slots, two each side and when one dies both are abruptly forced into a new slot, but honestly that quite forceful on people and just hitting escape and picking a slot isn't such a hardship that could give a VR user a trauma.There aren't any mission side API controls to do this from a Mission script. You could make the cockpit unuseable by shoving a picture up that blcoks the view, or destroy the other plane too, none of it is elegant. Also depends on what you really want to achieve.

Just to help out the explanation because the problem wasn't immediately fully understood. Ground units at least, possibly more kinds are substituted for a "static type unit" when they recieve terminal damage, i.e. when they are on flames, no health and 30 seconds later explode. A lot of scripts rely on knowing when something has died so it can be respawned or an activity takes place as a result. This is a fundamental scripting trigger and one of the most obviously used. It has been used for over a decade, and over these years many scripts are created to leverage the fact that something 'died' in the mission. Due to the change of the type of unit that explodes, DCS creates a dead event but its not the same unit type and is missed because it is a static. Depending on the coding, a script can hit or miss this, but at least as far as I know any script created with Moose prior to today (5/6 years worth) will fail to recognise something died in game. We implemented a workaround where we have to examine a static dying and check it wasn't a unit and all sorts of messy and un hygenic workarounds to get it going, but the impact post today remains the years of work people have created using Moose will fail to recognise a dead unit as a result. I dont have an assement for the AGME or Mist or custom SSE scripting related scripts. What the ask is, is to have things as they were before, that when a unit dies, it doesn't change its type, in order to preserve the thousands of published player scripts that are downloadable on the forums and web site. Thanks.

For the record, the MOOSE community were not consulted in this request. Rather than derail the ask, I intend to aggregate the votes of the 1900 active members on the MOOSE Discord and summarise what people are asking for, since everyone will always have their own wishes and I've long since given up assuming I know what people actually want. I doubt any of them will have considered ways of identifying a forest though.

No way is it a cheat! Us simmers are deprived of body feedback! We are instrument gods. Could you imagine flying with right rudder in a real plane feeling squashed up against the left wall uncomfortably. In the sim, we look for a slip indicator... sometimes. Natural G force being absent makes it much harder, but flying a plane to it's limits is 'felt.' It's even used in teaching manuals, the USN use the phrase taking a bite of the buffet and include trying to understand the literal feeling of a plane at various AoA's. In dogfighting, with a small view space, when padlocked onto an enemy plane in the roof of your cockpit, you have almost no sensation of what slow is, in the context of AoA. A haptic replacement only partially meets what is available to the bodies sensation when flying vigorously.

Hi, I didn't go much further but its great to see people expanding upon this hobby and anything you add is no less than awesome. So, it's true what you say, you don't "need" to have a 1:1 signal to make something more immersive. For example any signal to any part of the body almost that something is happening in game adds something. The closer it is to real world, the better. I haven't stalled an aircraft to feel buffet but its well documented. The issue is perhaps more from plane to plane. Some planes show a lot of buffet before they stall, others snap a single wing quickly without warning. Each AoA for each plane will be different. But they should exhibit common signbs, which is a vibration, its basically disturbed airflow over the wing at too high alpha so its bumping throughout the airframe. Rmemebering you can stall one wing you can have uneven feelings irl, but not somehting I think the exports can handle in DCS. It's easy to imagine uneven airflow, everyone has been in a jet liner when it goes through turbulence. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFl6I_a3njg This one is more stall related, but a good example of stall without buffet. So, the TLDR is that it may be very complex to assess the buffet amount and strength for each moment of AoA for each aircraft as its attached to the FM. For haptic arms what about rollrate and yaw? might be soemthing that can be done. HTH good luck making something!