Pikey

These are nice vehicles but right now could only be used in a friendly fire scenerio. The map needs something to fight against. Some skins for the updated insurgent model would be good so you could fight more than one type of male. Perhaps some machine gun positions or generic defensive positions/buildings? Civvy cars? It's not that I wouldnt like assets but the issue is way worse on the side that you could shoot at. And being its Digital Combat Simulator my vote is we have targets.

Hi @Appleit was reported internally, i.e. it made its way from here, to my internal report and someone dilligent took it and off it went into the great unknown . Its a pretty busy time right now, I hope I can add a bump when things calm down. I wouldn't expect anything this month, but stranger things have happened. Sometimes things sneak into patch releases and we dont know until later, sometimes we wait 3-6 months, sometimes a lot more. If you ever get examples where you can demonstrate how it affects many people, that might be useful to add, otherwise we've given it out best wishes and sent it off

There's a lot of items listed above that are core DCS platform and not part of the module that will get developed for years to come, like the radar, weapons, ECM, ECCM parts. These dont belong in that list. There's a few things that rely on a better overal datalink system. This is a difficult path to discuss, I campaigned really hard for datalink expansion and we got it to a fairly complex point already, to where, a lot of the time, the real world comes back to bite us with its limitations. The DCS ecosystem needs fleshed out here, but missing DLINK features are a bottomless pit. There's items that have issues with public documentation. I do love how folks can bandy about RWR models and expect public material to be enough to make a reasonable take. Newsflash, the entire ECM/ECCM in the game is grossly simplified or not done at all. /s Shh, don't tell people, it's an amazing secret that no one knows except me - apparently /s. There's a few items in that list that are applicable but vague. Whilst there is a dmagae model...the damage modelling is undercooked in my opinion. But then the core sim was developing an xrayDM and moving from the testing ww2 items outwards... yet to see any movement for years here, there may be parallel developments waiting, who knows, but whether or not there is crossover with core DCS platform items, its objectively quite simplistic. I think HeatBlur make a decent take on aircraft system faults. Big gap between F-4 and F-16 here. I'd like to see a fault other than losing both my wings, if I am fair. Then there are specific missing F-16 features. Im not talking about the DTS which in my subjective opinion, is a waste of time in a simulation thats still adding INS inaccuracy to its core gameplay, its a sim, errors are unpopular, go look in the JDAM threads. Why would a sim simulate a system of INS errors, then simulate the system that removes the INS errors? Seems like a waste of time. Is that really important to someone? Who? What percentage of people know about the British Aerospace TERPROM DTS? Hands up. Finally, the missing useful F-16 features. What I mean is SEAD steerpoints, related HOTAS functions. I'm yet to see a definitive list of those missing features especially when people mix in DCS platform deficiencies, useless ICP pages that dont apply, and completley worthless simulation. Yet people tout this as 'exspurt stuff'. Lets go riot on social media because internet activism, review bombing, downvoting and moronism is best done when campaigning for something that one has absolutley no idea of the details of. This reminds me of the AV-8B arguments when Razbam stuck in a page for the TAMMAC and said, its confidential, no data and left the message on the page in the sim. Let's have an actual list of F-16 module missing items and why they are useful that doesnt include rivets an entire panel (christ, is this worth mentioning? what panel, what was kept in it? tell me why I need to worry about it) and useless error correcting systems like DTS.

I've been making SAM's disappear from my HAD ever since it was introduced as a feature for F-16! But seriously, the HAD has to deal with disappearing emmitters all the time. Online or offline, there's so many HARMs fired at radars by F-16's its one of the communities favourite activities and if that was all there is to it, there would be a lot more feedback, so there is something additional to this that maybe obvious, but hasn't been accounted for. No one has mentioned wether the emitter turns green or changed colour during the engagement, or provided a specific sequence of events from the radar's point of view, just that they turned away and now its completely gone and so is their cursor. What has actually happened? It's not simply that the radar has stopped as this happens all the time every day.

Tried to reproduce, no joy. The first track crashes on load, the second is describing something different, and misison 8 of the wild weasel campaign doesn't have a radar that disappears or I am not understanding the steps to reproduce this. Tag me if you have a track that reproduces the symptom of the cursor disappearing and you have steps I can follow to make a report.

Thanks for the report, Ive changed the original to remove the other units and planes and radars and checked the track on other DCS versions to produce a report which ive submitted. Just for your information, the issue is slightly different with the "forgetting" Actually they do forget...eventually, long after they are dead though. Reminds me of a certain bug with the tank dead event that was never coming when the tank went bang and the unit changes from unit to static. Seems like somehow the delay in forgetting is whilst they are a unit. Im curious to see what other types do but Ive run out of time for today.

So there's a lot going on. What I found is that ROE stops detection. For those not running the track, its too much to explain but there are combinations of Hold fire, invisible and late activated. I flipped ROE to 'fire' on the M1A1. Instead of shooting the unarmed trucks that were detected by [who?] in the logs, it immediately detects the BTR and wipes them out. I conclude that if you turn ROE to not firing, it also changes the detection to "blind" or paused or something that doesnt work until released. The combination of invisibles and ROE and inability to kill/attack contributes to the overall impression of something worse. The spawned in BTR fails to attack the MBT in its front when spawned. But this is becauyse of unit type vs unit type restrictions. If the unit is replaced with a BMP2, the turret immediately fires. Spawning a late activated Bradley behind those BMPs, it immediatley fires on the BMP and the BMP immediately responds behind itself I dont find a defect with detection, despite the weird ignorance of the BTR towards an Abrams in front of it. And the ROE thing is debateably a bug, but its more unexpected than a bug. For your second report of persistent detection after death I need something a bit clearer.

I'll look at the miz and generate the tracks or convert to something that can be reported.

Update - it is max takeoff. but its not when it goes red, has to be a bit before, the exact amount I dunno, but I took 3/4s first time.

Weird new bug as of date of post. Spawning AI A4's they take off, slow down then stop in the air. Pilot then ejects. This is new to me. Any one ideas? AI is inside normal max weight. null

Yes this is the same thing. The defect was that ground units (not air units for whatever reason) didn't "forget" the list of what they detected. This meant that if you flew up, got seen by an EWR, then ducked behind a hill, if you asked that controller for the list of targets it sees, you are still on that list. This wasn't an easy bug to understand because most folks cannot tell that they were legitimatly detected or when. The entire thing is compounded by the ability for the EWR Task to send DLINK detections to planes. If a ground controller has a detection and an EWR Task it will send the detection to any plane. So a Mig 15 could and did chase you all over the map based on this bug. And since no one understands that in the first place, then Reddit just exclaims that the AI has superpowers, when in fact a simple defect caused this since last November. I felt very strongly about this defect.

This should be solved in public builds now.

I also think its an engine limitation. Nevada has no sea. I went out to the west coast looking for it when 1.5 and 2.0 were a thing. We all know sea level is on a plane that exists under the terrain since before DCS World existed 15 years ago in BS1, A-10C. The negative altitude conversation is a frequent debate, ED and anyone who has been here a while know about it, yet its not been addressed, so we can infer what we want from that.

Congratulations @Massun92 and thank you for your endless work to bring us this into the core game! This really brings DCS World alive, i'm lost for words about how delighted I am that ED and you have reached this milestone!

Cargo to the Chinook is like weapons on a fighter plane. It's not just a nice to have, it's the entire point. I hope ED in general can take a good hard look at their customers general sentiment shown here and ensure that their development focus targets what is being asked of them.

+1 for a Mission Editor 3D environment with Lua interpreter and code execution box. So sad to see FSFIan hasnt come back since 2020, he was a visionary, its been ten years since using WItchcraft and the offline web page for mission editors. Witchcraft was a fantastic project. Maybe it even still works? https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x21d3ac Until then, you can have a basic way to run scripts whilst the environment is running using the video I posted many years back;

I think he was agreeing with the general sentiment I made about the base game was important to him but people don't buy that. Which tends to be a common view, if I understood correctly.

Tippis has outlined the reason, the Mission Editor cockpit parameters are provided for single player tutorials and dont work in multiplayer as client. You will see this with the green gates too. Although they work, you dont see where they are as a client. There's quite a lot of this going on in the application - things that only work in SP as player, versus things that work in both. Its definitely caused by how the product organically grew. Over the years there were some opportunities for standardisation disregarded...shelling zone, scenery removal, carrier lights, warehouse api etc. The following limitations are not documented on a per function level (by the publishers) Which functions work only as a lua function API ( from https://wiki.hoggitworld.com/view/Category:Class_Functions there's overlap but even the new Warehouse API not added to Mission Editor) Which functions work only as a Mission Editor condition or action (LOAD MISSION (really? yes really we've been using flags in scripting and triggers in ME), Training Gates (why cant we have these for scripting?, SET_CARRIER_LIGHTING MODE, arghhhh) Which functions work only in Single Player (shelling in zone, cockpit parameters, green gates, set failure, etc) Which functions have an API, matching trigger or action and work in single player and multiplayer (e.g. Push task, set task, mark to group, message to group, sound to etc) (side note: we have had things break in single player and not Multiplayer but thats not the normal way) (second side note - the entire lua game event system has the same limitaitons and some events do not trigger and never did in multiplayer. Others have different behaviours.) There's very little appetite shown in the last 15 years for making a standardization sweep that unifies these. We can assume that its not happening along with a lot of other things we would like to have. If you read this far you are the tiny tiny minority of players at the top of a pyramid of contributors that expand the attractiveness of the game whom have elected to spend their time in the least developed and greatest lost opportunity of the simulation itself. API's dont sell modules. I've had since version 1.2 to figure things out. I have no idea how anyone begins to learn and understand these limitations because I dont think they would make sense to an average person. I feel for you guys.

No sure what you mean, but this is exactly what I said. A new IFF system coming to DCS. It's a big deal, its a co-announcement.

The meaning of this is not that the Mig-29A will come without any functioning automatic mode 4 that the multiplayer community rely on, but a system will be built. There's been some built by third parties already, but they only work in limited ways. DCS hasn't done anything in this area before. To date, ED hone new systems on a single module. So I think this line is under the radar for its significance, since its saying there will be an ED IFF system of transponders, codes and interogators and the implication is that its an actual system that will be in use across modules. What do you think? What do you wish for in that system? Would you like your own side engaging with you if your transponder is out? SAM's with or without interogators? Rules of engagement? It's a big topic.

Where did all the old Afghanistan posts go? Specifically looking for the ones that debated whether this map was "interesting" and what type of games we could come up with, as a community. What's the attraction of an Afganistan map as a location for a 'game'? For aircraft targetting infantry, the infantry we have are of mediocre animation for the best ones, the ground AI routines have much less detail than a plane AI. For aircraft targetting vehicles we have some good new additions, but we are talking only 2 shapes of three types - arty, technical and airdefence. Thats 6 units out of the entire catalogue of DCS. For aircraft vs aircraft - nothing to simulate. For sea or ships - nothing to simulate. No offensive radars of any type to avoid/destroy. If you just want a sandbox (no pun intended) and don't care what's simulated then there are still better places to do that, that aren't confined to a place with limited existing infastructure. If you actually want a 'game' then the Balkans conflict in the mid 90's ticks every box - Soviet era peer equipment Large US base Aviano Italy Varied and beautiful (green and mountainous) scenery Era allows DCS inventory modelled Historical depth and detail Air vs Air, ground vs ground, Carrier ops Balkans was my age groups Afghanistan, for a period of modelling warfare, its much moire suited to DCS strengths and offers something different.

When you say "Spawn" you don't mean dynamically creating it with addGroup() via scripting, you mean just appearing as normal when put down in the mission editor right?

Here's how I used to do - I remembered later. https://github.com/thebgpikester/MPSG/blob/main/mpsg.lua

Hmm, thats a tough one. I had a quesiton before how does the script know if it is running on a server or not. WIthout anything else, only in the mission environment im not sure it is possible without either the plugin environment or some other check. Basically seems like you need to know that so you can write the script to cope with the differences in MP or SP (or host/client). I don't know how to do that in only the mission scripting off the top of my head. Anyone have an idea? It might be easiest to put a client down for a TF-51 that no one will use to just get all the right birth and enter unit events.

If there's nothing else playable, Player enter unit wont fire at the same time as the mission starts. You can see this happen if you add anything else playable. In this circumstance player enter unit is the same as mission start. It fires whenever the player is in the game but hasn't taken a slot. Same as birth. There's several of these events that have never been implemented properly and/or have quirky interactions in SP/MP as host/MP as client. Is there something you are trying to achieve (rather than testing the events) let me know.