Pikey

If i'd said that, then i would have... said that. Learn the difference between infering and implying. You infered it, I did not imply it. Or say it. Here's some game industry texture arttists crying out for unity to support 32bit textures https://forum.unity.com/threads/normal-map-artifacts.417741/ It's not as cut and dry as you keep saying. I have no issues with the ED textures, in fact the Heatblur F-14 is the one that my gfx card consistently starts chugging at so I can't follow the end to end flow of what you call so obvious. Thats all i'm saying.... it's just not as simple as you keep making out else there would be absolutely no evidence to the contrary and there is a quality consideration that has been raised both online and by artists in working with the sim. Thats it. No personal bone. I suspect you hope there was because no one from the dev teams is answering you. I also wish they would, because I still believe your message has lots of merit.

@twistking The reason was provided by a texture artist from Heatblur. Choosing not to believe that is a valid reason is fine. But I would ask everyone that doesnt beleive their reason is valid to consider why, not only ED, but most of the third party developers are doing the same with the textures. Have they all got group hallucinations? Why would something so unbelievable only be unbelievable for people who aren't creating modules for DCS? For me, I never tested how much the distortion is really apparent, others here claim its not a factor, so for me, its like choosing between several companies that have people working on this or someone that makes a counter claim. I pick the majority until I become able to do better for myself, but I realise that is an uneducated position. Still, I don't claim any of this, from either side, is unbelievable. Nothing is unbeleivable and that word keeps going around.

the ai can't take off from this carrier. it thinks the positions are like a nimitz

Aircraft stationary on the ground should not be targeted, let alone hit with radar guided air to air missiles. That's all there is to that. Doppler gate is what 40kts at close range for DCS air targets? This is a vestige of the fact that DCS sees a unit as "something" and not as a moving object through 3d space. However I can't speak for helicopter blades because that's a different thing and should be possible. Still, its all moot because no trackfile.

Its got to be something that is possible. With data, good public documentation or at least records and extrapolated data. Su-30 seems to be a pipedream. Stick to simple and realistic.

ground level. Not sea level.

is this because of the EPLRS task? (It's not available for red awacs) So is there some lua we can add to the misison that can add the task manually?

Regarding the question of what lua can do - whilst LUA can execute in a mission, it has restricted access to modules and libraries that is enforced by the game. A certain file in core DCS "nils" these so they cannot be used by default. One of these is the operating system module which allows access to the "execute" method. Other sanitised modules are the local file system and IO. as well as not being able to load the loadlibrary command and so on. Whilst you can uncomment this (and its done a lot for server side which is less restricted), you can't guarantee everyone does and getting a userbase to de sanitise themselves so you can run arbitrary code via the mission is obviously not ethical. Not to mention, new skins require the game to reload anyway so that's kindda blown away. I have tested os.execute and lua gives you a dirty great big DOS prompt on yourscreen whilst flying whilst it works away... not even good, lua is terrible for this, has to be done from the core C engine. Also this has been suggested, even this year internally, that we could get missing skins to download from the server. I can't see it happening fast, but at least you know its something that many others have wanted.

I had a set group recently and it populated new spawns itself. So the problem would be somewhere around the name or the specifc type of object and most likely would then have an error in the log.

No. 3D objects are "dropped" by the core sim onto the ground and bury themselves at their own discretion, not by anything scripting has accessible. They don't rotate and th eonly height change can be via some spawning onto another object then deleting that (so the only way is up) Sadly.

absolutely fantastic work

Hi, I feel cheeky to ask for more, but considering the Collossus class was so widely sold on and preserved post war, such key ships above demonstrating this, I'm asking for something that is sort of obvious given the heritage and that is the original Collosus light carrier or whichever derivative is easiest to port into a WW2 British Pacific Fleet carrier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1942_Design_Light_Fleet_Carrier The Leatherneck Corsair is getting closer to release, the Marianas islands by ED also getting closer. There is an obvious desire for some to have fleet WW2 action, so I think a WW2 version of this makes a lot of sense. Thanks for the consideration.

Fantastic!

Holy smokes that is a high quality carrier sir!!! I'm gobsmacked!

That green is used in other Russian planes as well, i think they must have a standard colour green for a specific paint requirement. Beautiful body, bad makeup from the 80's?

OK thread derailed. Get back to how awesome it would be to have a Mig-29A, in DCS. No one really cares how bad anyones experience of an unrealistic public server is, or anyone's idea that its only about PvP or that GCI doesnt exist or any other nonsense. If we did, then the only thing anyone would care about would be having the best module in DCS, not about trying to model authentic air combat. Or, in other words, your opinion.

Just need to add my name to this thread. My hope is to one day see Mig29A, Mig-23, Mig-21, Su-25 players fighting against 80's blue jets in full fidelity modules. The 80's are the only hope for that, with the way Russian law is. The constant push for modern jets is pidgeonholing the sim into random desert scenarios against 1980's tech and AI. Many of the AI models in the game are as old as the real world objects. Without players in Migs, the sims ecosystem for multiplayer is hugely limited and cannot get off the ground and into the limelight. If you saw a genuine blue vs red contmporary battle in DCS, you would love it and it would mean more units sold and more modules all round.

I understand how we got here because I was here all the time whilst it happened, but yes, it's a bit of a mess. One issue is DLC maps. Instead of these being community made ED held on to a higher quality version. That's not a bad thing, but we have nowhere to go with our different units that don't fit so we cannot dig ourselves out of the hole. I think the maps should stop and it be moved to the community and supported openly rather than a licensed, complex and timely affair. I don't even suggest to make half as much as the current quality of say the Syria map, you could have generic ice landscapes that could approximate a quarter of the globe, sea landscapes that approximate two thirds of the earth and with a little effort on ED's side a way to add generic naming of small towns directly to an island "splodge" that would cover a massive amount of scenarios and unlock some of the pain, without even trying to challenge the quality of the DLC. Supporting the unit count/artwork/installation size going forward has obviously been raised internally as an issue that ED have to manage aggressively going forwards. They cannot have unlimited assets in the sim, its getting huge, and every time they update the EDM format it causes masses of work whilst all the units are reexported and checked. A lot of these units are legacy lomac models from a different era and whilst they are perfectly workable, the age is obvious. There are some more fundamental issues with the sims direction in that it's customer base pays big bucks for teen series modern modules yet doesn't want 80's muck. I say that based on common sense anecdotes, that the F-16, F-18 sell more units than say Sabre or Mig 15, this isn't a surprise. So, the maps we get are where those modules were flying, which in the last 20 years has generally been over desert. At some point the teen series has to done. We have to see some classic Mig-29A vs F-16A Fox2 and fox 1 fighting, stuff which ED can do both sides of the coin because it wont upset the RF laws. The best hope for DCS to be authentically made with two sides in full fidelity, is the 80's. But the people buying DLC are wanting the 2050's. It's a human issue. Kids want the future, that amazes them. Adults want the past, because frankly it tends to be better! The older the aircraft, the more it hits declassification and the more authentic a simulation of simplistic behaviour can be done. I dont know that you can fix the way people think and as long as DCS chases the money, they wont be able to please the ones that keep the lights on and they wont cater for what actually can work.

I saw there was discussion on solving the RWR symbols but I coudlnt translate it, its very interesting. Great models and exciting mod

if you mean weapons off, then you can find that in the default Mission Editor, under advanced waypoint actions look for ROE.

The sensation of flying is pretty much a core feature of the sim experience, opt out and you have no compulsion to understand the mechanics of why planes need to be trimmed and thus understand the beauty of the key selling point of DCS, it's great flight modelling. Remove that and it loses something core. Adding a mechanic that does the flying for you doesn't make the game more accessible and even erodes the general product direction. So ED long ago decided that the course was set and people of category A could have product A and people of category B could have product B, rather than create features that did both, inside one product. MAC needs to be somewhere people can play the game aspects without repurcussions. I dont think it will be very compelling, but there has to be somewhere appropriate to point people to, rather than implement yet another configuration option to DCS: World and then have to build securities for Multiplayer against all these options and use up more Mission Editor real space, more server-client checks and securities and make the sim suffer more complexities to support. I hope MAC goes well, so that more of these posts could be pointed to a better place for everyone involved. DCS has kept it's course as far as I can see, it's aiming for tighter simulation rather than consumer concessions, Fighter pilots are opening Discords and discussing realism, competitive esports are becoming more commonplace. It's a very large melting pot and needs a bit more diverging.

aye, we are currently very late war, for no other reason that what models they found first in TFC. I would prefer consistentcy in the matchups and work back. It's sad to see that a Hurricane gets put at the back of any queue by those "rules" but we have what we have and should use it and be as consistent as is possible before being imaginative.

i suspect you are nearly there but its simpler. You notice APKWS is in the missile category when loading weapons, so they are doign it via that category globally. it wil get sorted I'm sure.

I don't know what it is, I had a report of patrolroute() and I couldnt reproduce. So dont assume anything is in a break-fix cycle. And fwiw, no insult, but this isnt a report that helps, more detail might

As TonyG said. The ball is not supposed to be visible outside of parameters. It's called at 3/4 mile within the constraints of the Case1 pattern or the Case3 pattern, neither of which your screenshots are in. This is not a criticism of your flying, it's simply saying that the meatball has a specific design and you are not in the design parameters. This is because the lenses are shielded (like traffic lights) to be only visible in the correct angle. If you can get on glideslope and path at 3/4 of a mile TACAN and then take a reference picture it would be much easier to discuss, although saving your flight as a track would make this even more simple as we can tell you what we see on a different system.