Pikey

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!

Thanks for the corrections, you successfully decoded my idiocy!

So there is a unique DCS thing with the variants added that I'm especially looking forward to, in that there is a two seat version of the same airframe coming. That's a big thing for multiplayer, often, trainers are lower powered, cheaper jets or a different type. Seen as unglamourous or "boring". Discounting the L-39 C and ZA which feel very similar, this will be the first time we see a front line interceptor have two seats and a single seat version in DCS. As someone that has more time to play than my peers, I often talk people through systems from another plane nearby. This is something people might not throw up their "oh its another trainer" complaint at, which, being honest, I get it, its a commercial sim but its also a game and many aren't that interested in 'stepping stone' aircraft. But, the people I know would sure as hell like to have someone they know in the same plane a little more cooperatively to get them up to speed with the same airframe, rather than the classic progress tree style that is more realistic. So, my ask is, that the E 2 seater will be coming close to the single seat so we dont miss the biggest time when the trainer E version is used by two players in DCS.

RedCap_1:SetSquadronCap() You set a CAP. Working as designed. Please read the documentation on this to save yourself time.

i'm with this. Iraq is sadly missed in the game, missing iran-Iraq and everyone vs Iraq and the ISIL operations later. Yeah, it's pretty boring in that region but it offers a lot of fighting and usage of some fairly significant hardware that is often unique. I'm also up for lots of other things and I am also happy with what I have.

There's a few ways of doing this of course. This is better over Discord since you have some discourse rather than one way and wait: https://discord.gg/bymwgEgp SpawnScheduled() will look for the unit,group counts and only spawn when met. Whilst this is the simplest method, you have to wait for DCS to despawn the first ones, which, on a carrier can take a while whilst they are parked. Catch the logic required for a direct spawn. This is more complicated, you have to look for something like the event that shuts down the engine being fired and catch the unit name then count them in code and if whatever you need ot happen, happens, then do your spawn. Lots of heavy lifting and not reuseable. SCHEDULER class. Make something happen ontime and every time. One caveat with spawns is that unless you change the group names they overwrite and delete each other. You could check if its alive first. One of your solutions would be more fleshed out as something a bit barbaric like: --top of the scheduler unit1 = UNIT:FindByName('plane1') if unit1:InAir() then local ready=false else ready=true end --do that 3 times and then if ready==true then SPAWN:New('plane4'):Spawn() end --bottom of the scheduler I'd give it middle of the road for ugly, but I regularly code with a chainsaw and vodka and it will work... for that super specific occasion with specific names etc. HOWEVER! I did testing for Super Carrier last year with spawning and it is still fairly resilient. I can't remember the number (14?) but there's massive issues and all sorts so I will only try general guidance. AI doesnt and shouldn't be set to recover and take off at the same time, its the rule because deck crew can't configure for both and trying will jam her. So, pick your time for recovery, pick your time for launching and stick to it like you should. That way you can launch a dozen at once. Also there are no API's for the deck crew and launch and recovery. So, dictate everything by the carriers movement first, get the timings for the windows, create schedules for launch and work out the recovery accordingly. That's it. Oh and get AIRBOSS class. I'm sorry, I am unable to understand this, perhaps also join the Discord. We aren't aware of any bugs with Dispatcher, it hasnt changed fundamentally in years.

I'm not convinced that people with any problem will just come to these threads and try it out of desperation which is why i don't think these settings guides are good, people apply them without understanding the underlying issue in an attempt to fix a problem best solved by adding 16GB RAM. That's my stance on this. Solve some pronblems? Maybe. Create problems, yes, I've seen people mess about with settings and misconfigure them as they didnt understand them.

Power>Attitude>Trim Repeat There's only one trim setting for every speed, so if you are changing speed you will be changing trim. Yes, its annoying, but equilibrium is a very unstable thing. Once at stable speed Trim your rudder (If available, remember the luftwaffe birds dont have rudder trim, they have pedal straps....ouch, so you can add rudder or vary the trim tabs in special options) towards the ball until centred. Counter the roll if you have that trim possibility Trim for pitch Observe speed changes (Often you get faster once you remove sideslip) and repeat. I suspect you are asking because its a giant pain. In real life its easier, some planes are simply very stable, especially the civilian stuff that lacks the power. Trimming is often done with feel to make your hands feel less tired, so its far less annoying than the digital of a computer simulation.

check the DLL's aren't blocked by windows. Copying dll from different drives can block them, also if zipped. right click properties "Unblock".

ok, shame as i could give a computer grade, thanks for the reply. My first lap round the boat in VR I prefered the handling to the Hornet. It absolutely feels right and passes basic layman realism, so imo nailed it. Really good feeling of pitch with power, good speed and drag feeling, doesnt stop fast, feels a tad quick, rolls beievably, feels like a real plane, most people would be fooled. Im gonna see if I can spin it now...

so, heres a problem, how can we interface with the carrier for landing? comms menu is not opening, do i need easy comms?

I know right, how are the wheelbrakes the right way around? WItchcraft...