Pikey

I think the same as with most modules, they don't meet our imagined performance because we use them fearlessly in an isolated bubble that hasn't got much relation to what happened, in some way. Also because the AI flight model is wonky if that is in the picture. The best part of DCS is that we can recreate completely different things and use different behaviours and tactics, so Its no more charming, just different from stories and expectations.

Hi OP. Make sure to always provide groups at least one waypoint far enough away in order to not switch to the RTB task or group controllers dont perform well. Was easy to fix your miz and the Junkers dropped reliably.

On the MP and server in question what is the Tacview line for CPU saying out of interest?

Just some general advice. Remove exports and live without them. That includes "Taxview". The one i will allow is SRS, thats it. The rest are FPS theives. You will see, test in multiplayer where it all hurts. For Single Player, most of this crap goes unobserved. Then ED takes the blame for something someone originally copied, without understanding what it does. That's all.

Wow that card is still warm from being kept close to someone's chest! Can't believe it survived to be a complete shock. DEEEE Lighted. \o/

Apart from the offtopic, so far the actual request is split between people that have hope for a European theatre with historically matched opponents using the current DLC, and people that want the Pacific theatre without any DLC if you discount land based P-51 and P-47 and the out of time Marianas terrain. Let's wind forward in time. Option A) European theatre gets the most common appropriate fighter and we can stop all the Kurfurst not used over the channel threads, have a few actually historical matchups, finally Option B) You have the mainstream Axis naval fighter as a museum piece, with no carrier, in a 2000's Guam setting with no current opponents until F-4U (due soon) and Essex carrier. Option C) Not listed, individual choice that may not fit with anything. I'm curious from those that voted the Zero: - Do you see your wish as fitting with what we have already or is there no perspective on DLC and other planes? (wanted not needed) - Are you assuming that the correct DLC will be in place at the time for the wish to be viable? (wanted not needed) Not a criticism of subjectivity, it's just that the thread said "wanted/needed" and i think the interpretation of the wording renders the entire thread pointless, since "wanted" doesn't have to assume anything, but "needed" suggests it has to fit in.

I was looking for some data to make some sort of end of year progress report on the Moose project. I don't know if its more amazing that we still have people brave enough to edit someone else's 5 year old code or that 1700+ people sit in the Discord listening to our gibberish. :). There's a single word that summarises MOOSE, and that is 'contribution'. It's not about being Linus Torvalds or Ada Lovelace, it's about all the different types of people using it and connencting, learning and making something bigger than the sum of it's parts. Open source software is the future. Contribution and collaboration are the cornerstones. The MOOSE project always aimed to open up software programming to DCS: World enthusiasts across the globe, in order to enhance their gaming experience and the experiences of their friends. All we need is to put the essence of giving first and we can harness the most powerful force in the world, to become an army of intellectuals. There's three groups of people that deserve special thanks for their contributions. The first and most obvious, are our enduring rockstars of software, Frank and Apple. Normally, when you don't pay people for a job, you cannot expect much. Except these two guys blow me away with their tireless devotion to making DCS coding more fun, not just in their creation of new features, but defintiely going back through old code, the hardest of tasks. 211 thousand lines including documentation, thats about a 7th more code, year on year. I can't fit all the classes in the last year onto this post, it doesnt even make sense to. These two people we owe everything to. Thank you, both of you. The second group of people are you. There's no point in doing it if there is no one to consume all that effort. Moose is not a person who seeks fame or fortune, it is a collective that seeks betterment, mostly by making the DCS Scripting Engine easier. Learn-teach-learn. Over the years many of the community have originated from people knowing little about coding to then stuck around long enough to show someone else something. That's pretty cool to see. And the last group of people will never read this. It's the families, husbands, friends, grifriends, children that have to endure our preoccupation. Remember to make it up to them at the end of the year and thank them for their patience and love. Don't forget to fly! Mike

Surely December is two more weeks?

With weapons getting their own brains, it would be nice to see a coordinate returned where applicable, we could do a lot with that.

Since I asked about this during a Moose conversation, I agree. We are currently, as far as I can tell, unable to make a convoy of any number or type of ground unit, stop and form up into a custom formation (like a deployed SA6 site). And the reason we cannot, is that the templates come from custom locations like the local PC or the base game and are added to the mission table as required. If we had this you could stop a convoy and make it go into a defensive custom formation. Then move off again - repeat.

there's also a datalink bug been kicking about of similar nightly weirdness

If you want the only workaround that can be used, Set the units as hidden. In MP, your gamesmaster can't see them either and that's your choice. Would be nice if it worked, I find the range rings annoying for fixed sam sites and gamebreakign for the small ones.

Just tried the shaders in the OP and looked OK until launched F-16 cockpit and it spammed this every 004 milliseconds: 2021-11-06 00:15:37.430 ERROR DX11BACKEND: Failed assert `shader != nullptr && technique != render::INVALID_HANDLE` at Projects\render\dx11backend_win8\Source\DX11Renderer.cpp:1107 2021-11-06 00:15:37.430 ERROR DX11BACKEND: Failed assert `this->wantedShader != nullptr && this->wantedTechnique != render::INVALID_HANDLE` at Projects\render\dx11backend_win8\Source\DX11Renderer.cpp:1183 So I would wait for a fix, it sent my logs into meltdown.

whats the version of DCS as written in the bottom right of the menu screen?

please

not without editing files and even then not tried. Its just not available as a normal configuration.

it's on joining, some sync thing. If you leave and come back it can be different.

Short answer attempt; "Missions" and campaigns are not the main content in DCS World. In other words, one misses a broader picture if single player activities are restricted to clicking the "mission" or "campaign" button or thinking of the Hornet in terms of a single player campaign. You buy the plane, not a story. If you want a story, you buy the DLC missions. DCS World created a Mission Editor for people to make their own missions and stories and fill the sandbox as desired. The point of my saying this is not to tell you you cannot enjoy something the way you want to, only that you miss out on so much by not looking at DCS as a sandbox. You want to fly a Hornet 12 times? I don't think anyone should think in terms of missions being the limiter. Viewpoint one: what campaign can I get with the Hornet? (you play only misisons then hard stop) Viewpoint two: what community missions can I download now? (you play all the existing content and look for more to play which extens it quite immeasurably) Viewpoint three: What can I create myself? (You never ever run out of things to do) And it doesn't take long. For example, Like a mission that comes baked in? Now try it at night. or bad weather. Anyone can download a mission, load it, play it, then change the weather or time of day, you dont need to scroipt to set a clock. There are people who upload missions and campaigns that are infinitely replayable. These missions/mods/skins, created by people not interested in gaining money for selling their effort are the gold dust that is called our community. Also, don't question yourself buying the Hornet. It's a fascinatingly versatile plane that can do everything well, It takes months to get through all the videos and training to any type of proficiency. If you like planes, this is the pinnacle of simulation. If you start to like the Hornet, you will find that your wallet crept out of your jacket, ran to the PC over night and bought the super carrier anyway. And the rest is what we should seek help for, because it snowballs.

There's a lot of difference, so picking out which differencee you care more for is the technique to choose. Chasing V1 sites in a Mosquito - Channel. Falaise Pocket and Normandy breakout with big armour fights? That's Normandy. Scrambling (Defending) against incoming Luftwaffe bombers along Dover's cliffs? Channel. Even if it doesn't actually fit the year well. Strong love of the D-Day scenario, Normandy. Site seeing? Channel. Pure Size? Normandy. Place to be when ED does a Bf 109 G-6? Channel. Need targets/scenarios in Cherbourg or Le Havre? Normandy. Like a winter map? Channel. Very specific month, capacity for large scale ground warfare? Normandy. PvP... I think this is set to change, but currently Normandy. The reason for this is because SOW and similar groups use Normandy as they have an existing campaign that can stick to accuracy. Don't like ALG's , Channel. (cmon, you know we exist, nothing beats those grass airfields of Lympne, Hawkinge etc) Subjectively, I find both maps constraining, relying on modules out of time, never quite fitting. My passion is where The Channel map is set but in the years before it, with the pitched battles in the sky. But these maps are chosen to fit late war aircraft which is mostly air to ground after July 1944, when the war was a race to Berlin and moved pretty fast, not allowing for times of equality or balance which the PvP scene would benefit from. Imo the period of the war where the contest in the skies was worth a good "game", was the German air campaign Summers 1940-1941 that includes the subset of time called the Battle of Britain. But sadly the best era for a knucklefight doesnt work for DCS because we don't have early planes, we made the maps for the planes we had and by the time the complementary late planes were made and flying the fight was well east, 1945 in central Europe. Not to mention, the largest market for DCS is the US, who like their own planes over other countries planes (somwewhat obsessively so I might add) and there was only what, 9 pilots from America fighting before they officially joined in. So we have to pause DCS until after the Americans joined. Meh. Can't have a war until they join, can't even have a simulation. And by this time Europe is over and Pacific will be more interesting.

The frequent causes are: You've applied a task the unit is not capable of (Harrier cannot do CAP for example) You've set historical mode (the watch icon) and the mission date excludes your choice The country didn't have the unit The country with the unit is not in the mission

I could tell in the first para that you didnt read what I said. I have a problem with DLC I own DLC Problem because people wont play on servers. Done. ejecting.

Didn't want to beat the horse any longer since it was dead some time back, but I don't understand why you cannot predict the outcome of only some players having some content on a mission that is available and visible to all. <List of people who play DCS WW2> <List of people who have the asset pack DLC> <List of people who play WW2 DCS> <MULTIPLAYER SERVERS running with the asset pack> The subset of the people that have it and play with is is smaller than the subset of available players in WW2 servers. @Callsign112 you propose that it doesn't matter, that you shouldnt worry because people that don't buy it don't want to play with it or otherwise don't care enough to be factored in. I get your point and you miss so much. This viewpoint assumes people aren't looking for anyone outside of a group of people they can name who are prepared to play that specific content - i.e. anonymous/public play. Not neccessarly friends, but all players, to a server, to build up the player counts. More players usually means you have a more interesting game with less downtime, more action. Players make content. The alternative is the DCS AI and if you should know why that is inferior as a fellow DCS enthusiast. I challenge your opinion is lacking depth. I believe not considering multiplayer population is the single player mindset, "you don't care because it doesn't affect you". I believe you would if you regularly looked through servers without the asset pack and looked for high player counts and tried to find the servers with high player counts and the DLC. You should look at it with someone else's eyes. Me and you might have it. Head for a server and its almost dead because the players that do have the DLC went to a server without the requirement to play with people that didn't have the DLC. This should be pretty obvious, but perhaps only obvious to people who have actually tried multiplayer and looked for games online at random. Every MP server admin cares about who is coming to play on their server, they all have to consider how open and usable this is for mainstream players bimbling around looking for something to do on an evening. Does it lock people out of playing? The answer is yes, people without, cannot join the server and then you have the fractured community because not only does this affect people who knowingly avoid DLC and don't care, or knowingly chose not to buy it, but it affects people who are browsing for a game. Amsuingly it also affects admins who accidentally picked an asset pack unit and killed their squadron night too by accident (which is less, but we've all done it sadly) What is missed is that DLC penalised people that HAVE it, just as much as the people who do NOT. I happen to be one that is is complaining who has it and write missions and people can't play on those servers. (Attached example reddit complaint which is the nightmare every admin has felt just for the laugh) So, whilst I'm not aiming to be disagreeable, as an asset pack owner and champion, your opinion doesn't account for the actual real world out there on the server list, the real issues DCS faces low server to player ratios, WW2 players looking for a server and being denied an impulsive night because they didnt consider planning their evening and knowing what the 1500 servers each run and who is on them playing.

Wouldnt the colour vary with the lamp age and the current going through it? Also the modded version has a tapering on the edges that is not apparent in the video of the reflector. I don't think either are that accurate, although the modded one "appears" more realistic due to to the irregularities, has a better "glow" and looks more like a lamp projecting it.

Easy. Your friends dont have it, you cannot play it with them. This is the absolute principle of DLC division.

To feather an engine in the Mossie you require oil pressure and electrics. An electrical boost motor increases the oil pressure to turn the screws. Often damage stops this part. You can get two types of failure, instant and progressive, so I found. If you suspect you are losing oil feather it immediately, because the aircraft becomes un landable with the drag of an unfeathered engine, I never got a landing done that wasn't unsafe. Oil leaks are simulated in the damage modelling. There's quite a bit of work to come as I understand about the finer points of the engine management so I personally am expecting changes. HTH