Pikey

I spoke to Lurcher and he pointed out a valid improvement (thanks) which I will work on. There are circumstances that the script would fail and cause a mess since this is dealing with commands these should fail earlier and do so cleanly, so I need to rewrite the code to clean up the inputs. I don't personally think this is sinister, but best to be watertight.

Could you exlain how code not exposed to users is unsafe and who to? I dont see it myseĺf but if you need to dm me an example please do id rather make an edit to the op or explain it.

Project now in Safe hands. And with the talent and resource growing and shared its great for all of us. Good times ahead!

Regarding Asset support for Pacific/SE Asia (and sorry not to derail this thread too much) there's a bit of a gap to be filled that is difficult to do, with even imaginative minds. Assets in this region are only going to detract from the slim list available for the European theatre. I think to do anything in the Pacific for WW2 something has to change quite drastically as the current route hasn't even started.

Good write up. We have to have a more symetric approach to asset building in DCS else its a bluefor museum rather than a combat sim. I thought your minimum required list was generous in its omnission of carriers for both sides and amphibious beach landing abilities of units.

I honestly cannot remember, it might have been a nod to NAVSTAR's fully operational system. 1991 would have been just as good - GW1, Soviet Union fading out and the AIM-120, but I opted for a few years later until GPS was more widely used. Maybe it was the release of the first PDA/phone combo, or Jurassic park hitting the cinema, but if you throw at dart at the wall in this era, you will hit something big - Tactical Datalink maybe? No idea what I was googling

I think WW2 is even more complex as, on the surface, ~25% of people have "dabbled" looking at the modules owned in a recent survey. ED are getting a lot faster at turning the warbirds out, It's potentially more profitable (sorry for the uncited reference, but I'm sure I am paraphrasing past comments from ED) WW2 is also higher up the authenticity tree in many places due to the more simplisitic and non secret nature of the era and has played catchup with the 90's units pretty well considering the headstart the core sim had on it. It's always going to be slow going, but I think they've done really well with WW2, it's even got bleeding edge damage modelling and AI, in some ways its looking better than the main event. If only we can get 3D modellers and artists to grow on trees. Maybe 'bundles' is a way forward.

I think this is a surprisingly broad and fundamental question further up the chain. I believe this is talking about Pacific assets in general. Doesn't sound like the cost could be absorbed into the WW2 assets pack to be honest, it was never in the design scope and splitting the asset pack into two era's, with the existing one quite saturated leaves the ugly question of DLC, which is probably why ED don't want to talk about it, because DLC is a super tricky item to discuss or execute on. Having said that, the rate at which it takes to make detailed models and the cost per unit is beyond what most people comprehend. The wages has to be paid for from somewhere. On the balance of it - I'd rather it was DLC'd then you know its resourced and covered, but I dont really want that solution as it will and has time on time fragmented the servers to make them more unpopular. I can't really think of a good solution, but I want this as much as anyone else - WW2 naval battles were my absolute favourite.

It's a great module, completely unique in DCS, from the stats on my server and a recent poll It looks like the fourth most popular behind some crackers. It's often my go-to, and you have to look at it this way, its been hard work for Razbam but you have to judge them on the result rather than the journey.

I've asked this over and over and I know ED know its wanted because I've had long and verbose talks with many people over the years, and ED do read our posts. I would like a way to compile all the people that asked and put it in a mega thread so that the full force of the ask would be comprehended, unfortunatley, it's not acknowledged like many wishlist items, sometimes they hit you with it years down the line, sometimes you wait a decade and you didn't get it ED is a blindfolded box of chocolates.

And with that, Maverick-gate was concluded and we can be friends again. Realism is in the eye of the beholder. Advice, knowledge and rulesets are much more cherished than hard level restrictions. The mission designer is the one that should get to choose.

Invisible aircraft at .9 to 1.2 nm is a bug you should report with a track. I dont see the same. I do rmemeber the P51 had a LOD problem once, but it was the longer ranges.

the WW2 gunners on boats, subs and bombers recently (last 3 months) were brought inline with being able to miss more credibly and it was generally noted with everyone this was improved. I didnt look at the 50 cal hummers though, albeit, to be in range of the .50 you need to be really close anyway.

I actually find the inverse to the OP, just to represent the Devil's advocate, but this is something I beleive after trying both for many years. On my 4K monitor with x4 MSAA and all the nice things, spotting and ID'ing are harder in 2D than in VR, where things are more aliased (because they have to be to support a workable FPS). VR brings with it, detection of speed and energy and point of collisions, aspects and geometry improvements, which in dogfighting and positioning, is everything. The core advantage to 2D is FPS, which affects "Movement" as a detection. Shape is the same for both, Shine is same for both, shadow, depends on your graphics settings (and altitude and sun position), and "silouette" depends on graphics settings and aliasing and background, of which VR cannot use aliasing easily without making FPS unworkable. 1:1 acuity down to pixel level is pretty good now in VR, I use Reverb G1. I pickup dots in good conditions over ten miles, so its clearly not that. If the target is behind you, how do you know? You either let it go there or never detected it. So "Owl head" is not an advantage I want to exchange in trackir. The ability to see your killer is worthless at the end of the day. It's called the control zone for a reason. You lost. If you never detected your enemy, welcome to reality club and read the same from the German aces. Work on flying more erraticaly with good rear checks and observation technique. In terms of ID versus detection there are important questions. Mutual detection is absolutely and most commonly in neutral advantage situations for aircraft armed with guns. Given the convergence of guns at say 300yards, lucky shots at 600yards, normal detection is way way way outside weapons ranges and outside a complete turning circle. The actual figures matter not, all you need to do is prevent your enemy converting his detection to an ambush, and that is via good observation that nobody really has the energy to do in a simulation, I tried it a few times and I was so exhausted I gave up. Which brings us to ID. I don't believe 2D offers much more advantage, given that between detection and ID you are always going to manouver as if to ambush the target. Your choice comes at point blank range to fire. If you mutually detect and manouver to gain advantage, it will end in a head to head pass, at which point, players will more than likely have come to their own conclusion before pulling the trigger. I usually shake my wings if I am in a situation where I was manouvering for advantage but then ID'd him as friendly. You can show your profile and manouver with your flank on show in a gentle manner to reduce the misidentification of your own plane. I haven't often been shot by my own side in guns only fights. I've been killed more times than I can remember in the last ten years in jets. You can't really compare 2d to 3d to real life well and probably shouldnt. The only thing you have to compare is that, competitively, people will attempt any advantage, a better GPU with very low presets will beat you more than 3d vs 2d on its own. Best to play with people you know.

Does this come at release of the plane to EA or after?

Hi Omin, LuaExportActivityNextEvent https://wiki.hoggitworld.com/view/DCS_Export_Script I'm not sure the level of support for these export functions but to present this to the Russian developers it will need an example script with the output that is wrong and the last DCS version it worked as expected. The only people that can reliably explain the issue will be whoever is using it and writing exports with it. I'm afraid the current detail sounds OK in words but lacks the example and detail needed for a report to developers, at least, a report that will get noticed. Please: functions expected return value Actual return value what this affects - 3rd party applications affected the extent to which this affects these applications (Severity and impact) Sample script that demonstrates this. Unfortunately I dont know anyone that has the practical knowledge to properly understand this and report it, welcome to DCS bug reporting

I think the link you meant to post is this? It's not what I would say definitively mentioning Dier ez Zor, in fact it mentioned other features and this only fans flames on that there is more left. But I'd prefer it was confirmed officially after ED's release comments ,thats the purpose of this post.

I asked and heard that it's done and there isnt a publicaly quotable representative from ED confirming they are doing any more features on Syria, all we have is that picture from November 2020. "Final" was the word used yesterday. If anyone has a source to the contrary, share it. I also just came here to ask for the missing 30 miles and Deir e Zor: I feel bad asking, especially after the gift of Cyprus, but the section of Raqqa to Dier e Zor was the main part where the Western Coalition forces were striking ISIL. I guess maybe people don't know or don't care and that's fine, but if you want to look at all the public airstrikes and attempt to model something at least realistic in dimensions, then the exclusion of this small Eastern city and its neighbour Raqqa, is by far the hotspot of the map historically in terms of "Bluefor aircraft". The US/EU flights simply didnt get tied up with the goings on near the Turkish border or anywhere near RF planes, because ISIL was their only objective and ISIL did not operate for very long, west of the Euphrates (maybe 2015's highpoint or thereabouts until if got stamped out). West Syria is essentially wrapped up now with Turkey increasing its borders into Syria as a buffer and managing the refugee crisis and Russia making observation posts to stop the different factions getting out of hand. West Syria was the civil war grounds - about as diplomatically dodgy as a discusion on the invasion of Iraq. Sure, the West of Syria is prettiest part of the map, but there's nothing there for DCS modules unless you are down in Israel, doing Israeli things, or being a Turkish F-16, or indeed now being Greek Cypriot F-16 or Mirage. With the introduction of Cyprus, I find that the map now changes completely for sandbox creators - its a Greek vs Turkey vs White UN/America and a British outpost in the middle of it, all over the Aphrodite gas field (potentially an Israeli point of view there for the more extreme and concerning scenarios) - Syria mainland is kindda "dead" for the modules we have.

lookup "DSMC" in the mods section. Its a self contained plug and play engine for persistence, there's not another sensible option when just starting.

You guys need to play more WW2 multiplayer to see what will be happening to damage modelling. Sure its going to take some time, but right now they have the warbirds done. After its done properly, then you get to see damage of systems instead of health bar based damage. That will mean the ability for the location of the shot to have a bearing on the survivability and these threads become different (and better) questions.

Looks small and nifty, what do you think?

Ahhh, you are talking like me trying to arrange people and giving up. Multiple airframes are the death of single squadron small groups. You are highlighting why I am doing this. It's a move away from forcing the player into the mission and towards having different players on the same mission - which is the non squadron type approach that I am trying out. It's not what I wanted but I'd rather make content for people that play than try to keep building a squadron that is tired. Running these things is super hard work on your own. Instead, I can stop and anyone can benefit.

Really, if I do this like we did for "Red Sands" server, its not a squadron at all, it's just a Discord for the server. People can get notifications of downtime, vote on topics, discuss tactics for that specific mission, or even share intel. And it's got nothing to do with their alliegances to Squadrons, in fact you can use it with a squadron. The way the stats are setup, player names are related to the UID so if you add a tag, it instantly shows up e.g.

This is a top requested features for the Misison Editor, not the game in general. From 2019.

Hello! My name is Mike and I create missions, campaigns, scripts and servers for DCS. I co-host MOOSE Community Lua server and test for Eagle Dynamics. My virtual squadron 42 VFG is winding down activity and I was looking around at virtual squadrons thinking that I couldnt find anything that fitted how I play DCS. I've noticed a move away from module oriented squadrons in DCS and an increase in multiple membership Discord based communites. I don't believe the virtual squadron model is weathering very well. People can be restricted by airframe or timing. There needs to be more "JIP" based play, pickup groups and variety. Sure, we like a persistent campaign, but if you are tired, an aerobatics or race circuit might be all you have energy for. There is the "mods or no mods" issue, Pvp, PvE, TvT, milsim, milsim wannabe and casual, all in competition. If a community cannot move fast, all the new shiny things in DCS can be lost. For example - will your squadron be ready, day one for when the Hind releases? What about when whatever new map releases? Chances are that if you are in a Hornet squadron waiting to try out the Mosquito when it releases, you will have to look elsewhere. So I want to change my squadron 42VFG into a server based community and I'm interested to see if people want to get involved. I dont want to focus on modules, I want to focus on people playing together in good content with some choices and their input. Perhaps you had a dream, this scenario you wanted to try, but you dont have the experience to write a game, or a script, or the time to understand the Mission Editor. Or maybe you did, but you want to get your mission on a server with people to try it out. Our current squadron server is an i9 9700K 64GB that runs webhook events direct into Discord, collects stats through Perun and displays a webpage http://42vfg.co.uk/ . This can be adapted to anything people are interested - previously we had a lot of fun doing the RED Sims server which was a continuous and adaptive campaign usign the Herc mod to capture and move logistics in a moving battlefield. But equally, we had competitive racing nights, training servers or bespoke single use missions, TvT events as a squadron, so I can host most things. And I think more poeple should get to use this rather than being locked behind a squadron "membership". This needs help and energy. It doesn't matter if its just that you are enthusiastic for having Monday Mod night, Fight club Friday or World War 2 Wednesday. Whatever you want, I just need to know if this is the right path for the usage of my time, hardware and software. So, the capacity for what can be done is there - search 'Pikeys server' in MP Browser, check out 42vfg.co.uk and/or join Discord https://discord.gg/T2k3AYWrxt to get a feel for what is possible. If you like any of the ideas and want to be involved to help, I am open to partnerships as long as they are in the open for everyone's free usage. If you have a different idea but you want to use my hosting, technical or scripting capacity, again, so as long as the end result is for the broad communities benefit, I am up for trying anything that people want. If you just want to come and help start it up or give feedback It would be appreciated. Maybe point out where I am going wrong and show me a server I might have enjoyed! Discuss beneath or contact me via PM, nothing is off topic!