Pikey

Do not understand this. DCS AI ALWAYS defends. You should not be in the position of your crank at the pitbull timer thinking, "hmm, he's still spiking me" You watch your spike, at pitbull, quick notch and assess. Then it's guaranteed banzai since that AI is doing loops and chaff and messing about. The AI is quite hard to connect a missile to, so try to wait a little bit or getting a higher shot. If you are under 10K feet the ranges are considerably reduced and you may be overestimating your reach.

If someone doesn't want to learn how the aircraft and peripherals are bound, you are saying this is the programmes fault and not the customer and they shoudlnt expect to be frustrated. Now I know you are a lunatic. But you are consistent. Someone stuck their head out of a train window and lost their head. Their familly tried to blame the signage wasn't strongly worded enough. The more we encourage this type of lack of responsibility for ones own actions, the more people will lose their heads. I'm not taking any more part in your insanity. Good luck with all the things you want to do, you will need luck by the way.

The tools are already there and have been, the hurdles are mainly for your average user to do this themself. One of the first things I said to FunkyFranky was: hey there is an error if this group doesnt exist and you sent an order to kill it. Because that will be what the code sees after a restart when it doesnt know. Already thinking ahead on that point, and also designing INTEL and reconnaisance so that they can build some target lists. I dont know how deep we can go, but you can give two sides a scripted list of targets and missions like a typical ATO and release them to execute it, with retries, and that already works. The warehouse class already has capability to write to disk. I've already written unit saving tools. The parts are there, its just not so easy for the average person to execute on. I think a nice design would be for the user to place all their pieces, on both sides, create the orbat, create a list of targets and then stand back and let the computer send out flights to execute. Shouldnt be too hard to do now. But lots of work on how the tempo of flights could be. A typical computer would want to spawn everything at once.

Yes! There is an example of the multiple Auftrag's in the demo missions (it's the B-52 bombing) They have two. An AUFTRAG is currently set to the next waypoint right now. You can add waypoints after that, you can set the time the FLIGHTGROUP executes the task and this is then managing the activation of the late activated group. There's lots of other fine tuning you can add. local Target1=STATIC:FindByName("Red TV Tower") local Target2=GROUP:FindByName("Red Target X") local bomber=FLIGHTGROUP:New("B-52 Air Group") local mission1=AUFTRAG:NewBOMBING(Target1, 25000) mission1:SetWeaponExpend(AI.Task.WeaponExpend.HALF) mission1:SetPriority(20) local mission2=AUFTRAG:NewBOMBING(Target2, 30000) -- Interestingly, setting expend to ALL does NOT work. Looks like as half of the bombs is already gone in mission1, the task cannot be executed any more. mission2:SetWeaponExpend(AI.Task.WeaponExpend.HALF) mission2:SetPriority(10) bomber:AddMission(mission1) bomber:AddMission(mission2) function b52:OnAfterPassingWaypoint(From, Event, To, n, N) --do something at a waypoint end

There's LOTS of new stuff coming to MOOSE and these will be considered as the start of pivotal changes in direction. We want to introduce these earlier rather than later so a smoother transition can take place. We also want to cover a quick summary of where MOOSE is, what the progress is this year and the future aims. January to June 2020 update Jimmy Greaves once said, "It's a game of two halves" and this applies to how busy Moose's Discord has been in the first part of 2020. The first half pre DCS 2.5.6 and the second half being .... well, the recovery after 2.5.6. We are now over 1000 Discord members. Anecdotally I'd say it was quiet right now. Moose discord is also quiet, there are no real busy channels that stand out. For achievements in the last 6 months, the 'outstanding contributions to mankind' award, goes to FunkyFranky (again), but not in the way he thinks.! The big green button "Merge" was pushed and DEV went to MASTER branch on 19th May after a whopping 2 years of a stale master branch. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=273731 All four wheels remained attached to the vehicle and it kept moving forwards. Great Success! We created a new document - "The Moose User Guide" which was the sum effort of Habu, Wingthor, Delta99 and I. This was something we started last year and has been slow to get out. A new repository has been made for it here: https://github.com/FlightControl-Master/MOOSE_GUIDES. The document aims to cover all the popular usual questions we get, and tackle learning to script as well as not learning anything but using moose in a very basic sense. This was something sorely missed by many confused people. The guide covers beginner, intermediate and advanced and is still regarded as WIP, but most of it is done. It's 70 pages long. Apparently scripting is complex. But the beginner chapter is only three or four pages. So lets look at 'Now' MASTER BRANCH - 5.42 MB (5,687,520 bytes) DEV BRANCH - 5.90 MB (6,196,653 bytes) Holy smokes batman! You said you merged Dev into live on 19th May???? So where has half a MB of text come from in only 2 months? Time to come clean Franky! It's time to talk about the next generation and whats going on. Problem: FlightControl left a huge legacy. Most of the people using MOOSE, especially in server based scripting, need MOOSE to keep working. But he is no longer actively working on anything. We have to assume this will remain the same. The code he left, is very complex. The CORE should remain safe but some of the functional stuff like Dispatchers are really difficult to work out. Solution: Leave his work intact and create fresh alternatives to his classes that are easier to support. It may not surprise anyone that writing complex stuff from scratch is often easier than understanding someone elses complex stuff. MOOSE 3.0 There are a number of classes already in DEV branch, which people don't yet understand, but will change how they approach moose. Even down to spawning things. It is intended that some of the existing AI is replaced with easier to manage code. A little bit more detail then right into the FAQ's and legal statements before I pack my bags and book flights to Argentina. Detect The new INTEL class will stand up, along side the existing DETECTION class. I've looked at one example and it functions very similar to DETECTION so far. Detection, as a class, is a bit interesting. If you dont understand the inner workings, how do you ever feel confident of the results it spits out? There were some "peculiar" things added by Sven, so Frank prefered his own approach and it makes sense. DETECTION will continue to work, become deprecated and INTEL will slip into common usage. (we hope) Spawning via FLIGHTGROUP This is different and will need some re-thinking to get used to. SPAWN isn't being replaced, however a method to fulfill a spawn of a group at the same time as give a GROUP a DCS Task/Mission is now being rolled into one Method. Previously, if you want to control a tank, you spawn it, hook to it arriving in the game, then send it some complex tasks that may or may not have worked and left you confused. The Air component of the smallest groups is called FLIGHTGROUP and can activate LateActivated groups and get them to go places, without even a route specified. Orders are the new Tasks The 'Task' part is probably the most important part of these new changes. This class is called AUFTRAG, the German for 'orders', or 'assignment'. The name has caused a bit of a stir because its not catchy or cool, but being different it will stand out. Here is what AUFTRAG does: DCS Tasks, like CAP, CAS, Escort, Tanker, AWACS, Bombing, were done via creating TaskCombo arrays, and issuing a SetTask(TaskCombo, 1). Even in Moose this could take quite a few lines. As an example to create, spawn, send a bombing Task to a group, is now very straight forward: local Target=GROUP:FindByName("Target Group") local bomber=FLIGHTGROUP:New("B-52 Group") local mission=AUFTRAG:NewBOMBING(Target, 25000) bomber:AddMission(mission) On execution, the late activation group "B-52 Group" enters the game, flies to the target, drops his bombs and comes back. He didnt need any waypoints, which means the location of the target didnt matter. When we added the mission we added it directly to "bomber", which is the FLIGHTGROUP. More detail can be added, but this is the simplest format. An AUFTRAG can also be given to the heirarchy above the FLIGHTGROUP which can be the SQUADRON, AIRWING, WINGCOMMANDER or the CHIEFOFSTAFF. Woah... funny names in caps and what does that have to do with scripting and why do I need one of any of those...!! (will come to that) Dispatching An important part of automation are Moose dispatchers. AI that reacts. This will change in MOOSE 3.0. Whilst it is still being built, the creating of AI to go off and do something automatically is very different from say the AI_A2A_Dispatcher. It is a combination of FSM events and creating Auftrag's and giving them to the right part of the hierarchy. Detect a group, create an auftrag. Recieve an event, create an Auftrag. Need it tightly defined, give the Auftrag to a FLIGHTGROUP. Need something dealt with but let the AI decide how - then drop the Auftrag on the SQUADRON, or higher. Any number of AUFTRAG's can be created and assigned to groups and they will be managed, ordered, checked for resources and dispatched. They can be dispatched during the mission and dispatched higher up the command chain. Which we will come to. So there is a hierarchy that controls the flow of orders from the top. This fulfills some requirements and automation but is not entirely needed unless you want this automation. The type of things we mean are - building multiple squadrons of AI that can be used to fulfill an Auftrag. If you provide the order high enough, the asset that fulfills the order will be picked by the AI. Multiple squadrons means counting plane assets. Squadrons have warehouses. So we introduce warehouses back to DCS scripting but make it entirely transparent. One can also have multiple squadrons and multiple airwings. An AUFTRAG can be dropped into the top, or the bottom. Of course there are payloads and weapons, so with squadrons you can develop loadouts that can be prioritised and eventually run out. And all this is mirrored eventually for Army and Navy, linked at the top by a class in charge that handles detection. See where this is going yet? MOOSE 3.0 aims to replace air to ground and air to air dispatchers by creating an infrastructure and AI that can plot entire persistent campaigns. We have quite some work to do on the AI intelligence gathering front. The recon classes that feed into INTEL are not done yet. Army and Navy still have some problems we need to overcome, however the first 16 demo missions run without hitches and if you look for them on Discord you can try this out as an early adopter. FAQ: When will it be finished? Hahaha. It's mostly done though. Can I use it now? Yes! What can I do with it? You can now use DCS tasks like a boss. Auftrag handles all the weird DCS black box magic. You can setup entire squadrons and Air wings, send Auftrags to air wings, see them executed all automatically, watch assets arrive from squadrons etc. INTEL PoC is working like DETECTION. We have a GCI mission, a full 2 stage campaign all ready to be demoed. Where can i find out more info? Discord #moose-development channel. People have already begun playing with it. Next week I will show the GCI replacement using Auftrag. Use Moose.lua from the development branch for the new classes. How do I get help? If it's not in the documentation already provided, you might just be on your own in the bleeding edge of scripting, because this is new and community support doesnt exist until the community is up to speed using it. So it would be good to get some adventurous souls to start out now. What tasks are currently working? AntiShip, AWACS, BAI, Bomb Target, Bomb runway, Carpet Bombing, CAS, CAP, Escort, FAC(A), Intercept, Rescue Helo, SEAD, Bomb on Coordinate, Tanker, Troop transport. There is a single mission with all these demoed you can pick from a list to see. (rather than 16 missions). Soon we will add GCI, CAP, free flow campaigns demoisntrating the power of easy to read basic scripts for DCS. Why release it half done now? Firsty, this is not a release. We are literally being transparent and explaining why there are a bunch of new classes in the DEV branch. It saves questions piecemeal. And the other thing is that Software tends to be organic in nature and grow and refine itself. This is the same as previous MOOSE developments. I'll update the MOOSE 3.0 developments on these new classes in the Moose development channel and provide basic updates here. I'd like to see folks checking th epinned messages on Discord and trying out the Demo. This is new stuff, folks will be using it and you would do well to keep up to speed rather than fall behind!

With scripting, yes. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=4324897 No need to break IC.

Except in DCS. You've explained how it should work, not how it does work. IFF in DCS returns HOSTILE red HAFU when they provide zero IFF response. There's not enough noise about this, but realistically, it's for multiplayer accessibility. To the OP, not clear what you are saying to be honest, it was too much story and not enough technical detail. I reported a bug where AWACS reports a DECLARE as hostile on a neutral plane and haven't bothered checking it again because I can't make anything else go faster once reported. F-18 HAFU's remain ambiguous yellow for neutral after interogation, I tested that much.

You can look in a completely different direction than your head is pointing without even thinking about it :) Read this whilst rotating your head about. It's actually easy. The acceleration on the amount of turn required to look exactly behind you is very minor, less than 30 degrees. That is tunable too. What is uncomfortable is having to actually turn your head around to look in that direction (RL or VR). Now that is uncomfortable.

Can you catch me up with the summary of all the things you have suggested to save Eagle Dynamic' business? I can't have read everything and clearly missed that (or those).

@Vertigo72 - Thanks for reminding me about the Mover example. This is a great supporting argument for needing to put time into something complex. The unfortunate thing is you think it's DCS's fault and not Mover's fault. Movers answer was to get someone else to keybind it for him. He's very clearly, not that into DCS, but this is where quite a lot of his audience is at and he wants the audience. His frustration on controls is exactly supporting the same argument; that you have to spend your own time, not someone else's, in learning something.

I don't care if you are quoting the Lord Almighty, the AI do not fly within either laws of physics or normal parameters despite what is plugged in to their model. It took me under 5 minutes to open the very last tacview I had and find their latest insanity... Here we have a Dora, apparently flying straight-ish climbing with his formation, doing an up and down climbing loops of 7.1G to -3G with 31+ AoA to -15 AoA with up to 39 degrees a second turn rate and if that wasn't bad enough... he ACCELERATED through it. Maybe this is th eLord Almighty. Impossible to perform, but not only that physically impossible to sustain those AoA movements without coming to a standstill. There are some factors simply not modelled in the AI. One of them is how they can get all their turn rate without any airflow over the wings, another is their drag handling, they simply do not slow down going through the air, no matter what their AoA, drag is discounted.

Quigon says that choices should not be allowed because players on Blue Flag only choose degenerate choices. He's then cited two examples supporting his view:Mirage D2M option Unenforceable "Fast align" on F-16 Except... D2M was a Razbam mistake. I'm not sure if its your memory or you missed this buddy, but, they had it like that first because they took their data from the later models and screwed up. So as not to annoy people, they made it an option. Thankfully the French AdA helped them with data. No reason to have a riot here, there was nothing devious in the mistake, just incorrect data. On to justification number 2: F-16 Alignment demonstrates degenerate play in options because its no longer enforceable like other INS. Hahaha! Have you noticed the state of development of the F-16 recently and for the last year? You understand the terms Work In Progress, why do you assume this is complete? There is no reason to suspect the currently abbreviated INS for the F-16 wont follow the equally long development the F-18 took, right? There's no valid argument from you, that DCS is being developed with less realism in mind. None. Also the fact that Admins choose the setting that you dislike is not evidence this is happening either. BF is popularised, it's not attempting realism, you making a deal out of the D2M setting is actually validating the TF-51 recon missions on Blue Flag! People assume that 'broader loadout options' mean "I'm going to put an AIM-54 on my F-15." Can we be sensible here for just a moment? There is a massively oversimplified look at loadouts that do not consider countries, fleets, moments in time, politics, budgets, embargos and so on. The example I gave was ASRAAM for the F-18. It's there, tested and we are restricted to the US Navy ordnance. Why? SkyFlash for UK, Meteor in Europe over AIM-120, Python in Israel, R73's/American stuff in places like India, there is a whole load of examples where loadouts have been reduced to country and fleet purchased ordnance, because "Navy didnt do that", so then people say, well I want a Finnish F-18 and the reply is, "Its a Lot 20 No 1236523 which never went outside the US. But that doesnt mean it couldnt. And are we really going to say, well, it never flew off the Stennis so you can't fly it in DCS it will not spawn there? Really? I think not. This is the thing, you can only take realism so far. If you want perfect.... tough. Not happening. It can fire Asraam and does, so I want to have the same Hornet, but I want it flying for the UK with ASRAAM because DCS is a sandbox and I should be allowed that because its possible, feasible, reasonable and doable. Hope that makes sense. Not asking for ridiculous things when it comes to Kiowa options. Just feasible things that tolerate the possibilities: a) The Country is not forced b) The time period is not ultra fixed to an exact point where weapons that were fitted to the same airframe later on, can be fitted to the Kiowa they have data on. c) There is a reasonable effort to keep loadouts feasible but not exclude things that were possible but rejected for monetry or country reasons, especially things that can be solved with options and loadouts.

This particular rule of thumb falls short. Let me work backwards. Had F-18 or F-16 been sold to the UK, would you expect to see Aim9 and AIM-120 only? Did the Israelis use Sidewinders on their Vipers only, or is the Python a a world first exception? Do even the US Navy and the US Airforce carry the same inventories of weapon? Artificial restrictions on weapons loadouts are artificial. I'm not talking about a AV-8B carrying AIM-120 and Harpoon, I am talking about a variant of the correct year being able to fire a wider amount of ordnance than what is operationally 'seen'. Example - F-4 Phantom from USAF. Carried AIM7. Would you see Skyflash done? Doubt it. What was Skyflash to an AIM7? Real life, current Weapons manafacturer reference: https://www.mbda-systems.com/product/asraam/ There is an ASRAAM on a F-18 and its been test fired, as well as F-16. If the Houthis in Yemen can jerry rig weapons to fire at Saudi aircraft, you can bet the CEO of MBDA will give you a quote on rewiring your aircraft to fit his missiles. And it will cost less than a Litening II off the shelf! This is all about cost, politics and very little about technical feasibility. Which in a sandbox simulator, has very little purpose. Example? How many TGP's are sent to units? Anyone care? Nope. It's a simulator, no one cares. Why not? Because money is not part of a the sandbox. So why should it matter that there is one or no TGP's in stock for the skin of the Harrier that never existed on the Tarawa? No one cares, and if someone does, they don't make the mission. But... this is the same argument for some loadouts! Just because it's a US Hornet Lot 20 which never went to any other country, you suddenly cannot get any appropriate and fittable weapons for it for other countries. WHen indeed, there is no difference and an ASRAAM should be possible. Except, ED don't want to develop an ASRAAM or Meteor and kit out other countries because it opens a can of worms and cost. Before this view is percieved as too broad, let me reiterate, the platform must be capable of firing it. It doesn't mean it had to have been tested with any country, but obviously the largest inspiration is from exports and trials, not from operational usage. As a sandbox, DCS is more restricted than you think. In DCS they find it easier to set artificial restrictions on loadout according to Country, fleet, specific Lot, version etc. And it's an entirely artificial restriction that, if money was waved at the problem, would go away. Sadly it costs a lot to add variants to DCS, else believe me, you would have seen F-14A sooner, the Spitfire CW variant would have been done immediately. The Mirage and AV-8B woudlnt have caused so many arguments, the C101CC wouldnt have taken a year, the L-38ZA wouldn't have taken longer. And, to their credit, the Gazelle variants are almost an exception, but how cool wasn't it, to have them? I don't think Polychop got enough praise here, because the effort for variants is quite a lot. Does it hurt anyone to have realistic potential loadouts assuming they can be developed? The only person it hurts is the guy writing the mission unticking the variant in the warehouse. Restrictions shouldnt exist where they are feasible and there are far too many of them occuring naturally that are excused their existence because people can't see the rest of the world outside the United States of America. I really hope to see mor emultinational support for variants and loadouts in the future from ED.

With weapons, which are absolutely in the missions designers realm of choice, I am way looser than the nerd in me demands. With systems I'm much stricter. I like the idea of bolt on systems in the same module, but you simply cannot switch things on and off when it comes to systems. I can overlook some frankenstein modules in this respect. The Mirage D2M was one of the best "checkbox" optional systems that DCS has seen. I want this stuff, I want it enforceable at a mission level and I want flexibility. But it has to be reasonable. Strapping a certain IR missile on that was not operational, I think can be reasonable. But some of the complex SARH's, nope. There is a better way to look at this: Is it reasonable, is it feasible or imaginable from a technical, not a budget or operational point of view. In this way, if something was trialled somewhere, even in an export version, then it's feasible, operationally possible and then it comes to the final check... Can the mission designer switch it on and off? If so, fire on, the more the merrier.

no. Late activated is... late activated. You want addGroup().

the only problem with hosting in the cloud is port access. Dedicated server works fine on ESX. SPeak to your provider about opening the ports.

1) Channel map is relatively new in the development cycle, Normandy is fairly mature (also affects DLC) 2) Normandy is focused on the ALG's and Landings, up to the breakout at Falaise, liberation of Le Havre, so it's a somewhat tight gap of the autumn of 1944. The density of the ALG's is quite restrictive in the appearance of when the map is supposed to depict. 3) Channel map appears to be late war due to Manston, but outside of that, I think there are more flexibilty in time scales than Normandy. I dont think Channel is so restrictive on dates. 4) Actual elevation and scenery density appears higher on the Channel map than Normandy. The Dover area has to be a good challenge for the most beautiful area depicted for a flight sim anywhere. I looked at a few historic ridgelines on Normandy and found the relief data was quite "soft". None of these regions have more than hills, but the Channel seems to make use of the elevation data better in my opinion. 5) The area covered by Normandy is much larger. However, we saw it expand post release and we can expect something similar for the Channel. 6) Where Normandy was French north coast centric with almost nothing of detail in England modelled, I get the feeling the centroid of the detail is the south coast of England. France is pretty good, Calais is amazing, but I see the house models of the English period villange detached farmhouses and see those as having slightly more love than the French farmhouses (I'd expect more stone used in France from the overhead). 7) Until you have clipped your wheels on a tree coming into land at one of the grass airfields like Lympne, that is sat on a hill, you haven't lived. It's really unique seeing that elevation data and I think these airfields are the centrepoint of the entire Channel map. They are the most interesting airfields to work from in DCS right now.

The answer to the question is that in windowed mode, DCS remains like a full screen app at your monitor size. It's not until you make the window a smaller resolution than its host monitor that you get the bar, windows controls and better handling for the window. And the reason for that is for better multimonitor support, they dont want a full screen windowed display minimising on a multiscreen display very easily and if you think about that, it makes a lot of sense.

I suspect not a VR user from the 4x MSAA :) I have the same CPU-GPU setup. in case you are interested, there are only a few differences in my settings. Textures and terrain textures: In VR set these lower to save on texture memory. I have the cheapest RTX2080S and it has less texture memory and that will cap out first. This smoothens things. For terrain, I can't tell any difference. Visib range is the fastest way to get more frames, for VR, I have to: medium is as far as I can handle in most cases. MSAA off in VR Preload is down at 60K. It speeds up getting into a server. Terrain shadows flat. I can live with the sometimes funny shadows. I have seen 90FPS on small missions with a Reverb, but mostly in the 45-60 FPS range which is great for VR. VR is always the first casualty of big missions though.

What? So Incirlik is only in the picture because Turkey is involved and nothing to do with the US base? So Akrotiri is not part of Syria because no one flies from there to Syria? I don't understand the logic. British Eurofighters are leaving Akrotiri to drop bombs in Syria. What part of this is irrelevant to the map/location/conflict? You might as well remove Israel and empty the sea by the same token.

You still don't get it, I would never want to, I already said so, why do you not understand? I instructed in 2014-2015 in TAW, ran my own squadron 2015-2018, IP'd in 132nd 2018/2019. At no stage did I ever take on board anyone who didnt want to read a manual, didnt want to excel and didn't try. Why? They make rubbish students and are time wasters. There is no need to chocolate coat anything in DCS, it naturally excludes folks like you who were outraged at the possibility they might actually have to read a manual, then and spend a week on the forums attempting to garner support for degenerate play because they didnt like the "master test button" checks in the F-14 cold start lesson. DCS is a simulator. It simulates with some accuracy, highly complex military aircraft, with an associated sandbox that is generally empty until you fill it with your own content. It suits people that bring their own imagination, who are curious and like investigating how things work. It doesn't suit people that need a lot of content up front, or that dont have time for challenges, or dont see the point in those. The types of people that play DCS and enjoy it don't have a problem with content, they bring their imagination and will sit and work at it. Its not for everyone. Now stop going on about this and either play it or don't, no one is going to help you get over your own needy personality.

When I show off VR to people round the house and give them the stick and throttle, I wouldnt hand over the stick and say, "OK!, Right hold on the DMS, left on the Weapon select for AIM-120's, push undesignate, move the TDC on your throttle over the brick on the right MFD, one click for L&S, now steer towards the TD and centre the dot, wait for the shoot cue..." No... Its the real world, I say, 'throw it around, have fun and shooting is for another day'. Then laugh with them when it explodes, offer them a drink and change the topic. Or if they showed an affinity for it I'd spin the chair, make them crash and finish the conversation because chances are their wife is looking bored already and needs saved. They can come back to that topic if they choose, 1 to 1 and I'll give them a link to this thread to make sure they know what the expectation is. It's the same reason when someone asks me what I do for a living, I just say "IT". Because if I expanded on what I actually do, their eyes would glaze over in seconds. C'mon, why are you insistent there is an easy short way to learn how to fly a complex plane simulated reasonably? I know we all want to have knowledge injected direct to our brains, but it doesn't work that way. You are hoping someone here that's flown DCS from the start is going to come up with a different reply, aren't you, that the best way to teach someone and get them interested is >>"This"<< and it's going to be..., ooh never thought of that, 100% of the world would get hooked in minutes. Not even free beer and hookers can get your average Counterstrike player interested in DCS. In fact, I sometimes laugh recalling people in Arma tellign me to do the chopper because, you know, I do DCS, so I must love it. No one gets it. The idea that there isn't a fast track learning isn't acceptable for you, else you wouldnt be here nearly a week later with the same question, same scenario, listening to the same answers. Military sims either interest people or they dont. If people aren't interested, they are not compelled to work at them. The problem is, every individual ticks at a different rate, is faster or slower than another, has more background than another, has different expectations than another and ultimately will learn at a different enthusiasm than another individual. But suppose there is this magic way... Let's hear it then. Matt Wagner would love to implement a magic sauce that gets everyone off PUBG and into DCS, you know. And if you can pull off that trick... you can earn your millions. Otherwise it goes like this. Same rule for my Dog when she tries it on. I put the food down. They choose to eat or not. That is it.

Oof, smashed it. Lovely all in one handbook for the community. Many thanks!!

Nah, this is the eternal issue and I have this problem a few times a week for 'reasons'. So I'm pretty adept at opening the command window in the right folder, dcs_updater.exe update @open_beta and the other command for the other verison. It tends to be quick once you swapped between them both as long as you dont delete your already downloaded files and cleanup.

The thing is, the "given time period" is never quite made clear. From the modules, we would say late war. I'd like some early war, but any of the war will do, it's just missing the equality of the combat types as said above, attacking bomber formations from either side is wanted, even if our timings and the realism is a bit all over the place. So +1 for any German bombers, the Me-410 above was a nice idea, something for the Mossie to play with, but im not that fussy, just an equal dose on both sides of bomber, fighter bomber, fighters so we can vary the play, would be awesome. It's all very well pretending those Ju-88 has bombs but you cannot task it with a target that isnt a ship.