Pikey

If you have a problem with GCI then troubleshoot that, with logs, in the appropriate thread or Discord. Isuspect you'll quickly find the issue with your GCI once you begin to read your dcs log.

nope.

The only order I'd like to see is an effective one according to development process, other than that, as long as you don't follow the survey and produce a training bomb first, but do follow the survey and fix the touch and go, IGE etc, especially on the carrier, I'm good with anything :)

Yes there is a lot of slow planes around at the moment, I am aware. I think some of it is DCS as it's newish. But there are also contexts where it works if the values are OK, so not sure how else to reply except I'm looking at it.

There is no way to have an AI plane stop waiting for you to take off before taxiing. bar the clever trick above which I like a lot. He either starts when you tell him or he goes immediately. ATC manages the movement of the airplanes on the ground and that is not scriptable. Escorting with late activated suggests you can set him to wait between waypoints by setting a switch and a condition in the waypoint to make him proceed. So, in that scenario you could have him proceeding, then escorting you on the next waypoint. All you then need is that trigger, which I would suggest is something like when your plane is airborne in the condition and a flag set as a result, that triggers his next waypoint to go and to begin escorting. It's a bit painful. You could also likely destroy the little man blocking him with the same condition of airborne (UNIT Height is >).

Buddy, this will be the topic of some importance in the re-imagined Moose world. If you want to own this completley it would be of great help. Please pass it under out noses so the "collective" can chip in :) I especially would like new users to understand the causes of "nil", where to get the right line, some of the common ones, etc. Other useful info is - Discerning the moose verison, DCS "normal" errors, adding debugging entires to help isolate issues, what other things the logs can say etc. I'd rather we did it really well and start shallow and dive deep than a "quick video" ;)

AntiShipping task and ALSO putting it at low altitude (no idea what the breakpoint is, but 500ft was ok)

I tried it one patch ago and its unit type did not support the ability to put a TACAN task on it and there was a small silent error in the log. With time.

Took a long time for me to get detected by the SL's but when they get you, be prepared for absolute blindness. It's a kind of fun minigame to dodge them in single player, you can to an extent dogfight them a bit. Didn't see any tracers becoming more accurate though. Sad to hear no MP yet.

For air to air there are two scenarios in DCS. You either have the FC3 behaviour or you get "pick n mix" with the full modules. FC3 is a unified behaviour shared of that minigame where pulse jamming prevents range and lock on to target until exactly 23nm. But it identifies your azimuth at very long range. For full modules it's been left behind, some don't work, some were slightly modelled and it's just impossible to bother with it outside FC3. I've given up testing A2A for a long time because we got so many more interesting modules in DCS, but I don't even bother with it and maybe I should. For FC3 its simple. If you think you haven't been detected on radar, you leave it off, if you have and are outside 23nm, you put it on. It has a 3-5s delay with switching on and off that was provided to stop people flicking it on and off a lot. It just became the most painful and annoying thing ever in DCS FC3. No idea of the effect of A2G on pulse jamming, it should depend on a lot of factors but would boil down to having it on as much as possible (because AI know you are there anyway and stealth is for immersion only) It should reduce the range for tracking radars to hold a lock. What those ranges are are pretty unimportant with smart weapons and long range sams are defeatable easily, but if you want to use dumb bombs in conjuction with a SPJ you are SoL. Altitude is your only friend. I have never seen any evidence personally of HOJ working for AI missiles and me.

The powerful editor really does handle "anything you want scenarios" Most scenarios can be simply made by selecting the unit/plane/ship and putting it on the map where you want and then put down the plane you want to fly (that you own) at an airbase or in the air where you want. The fact that many folks use scripts doesn't mean you cannot solve everything you wanted to ever achieve. It will be decided by whether you find it interesting to explore ideas, like I wonder if I can model the recent Drone shoot down over the Persian Gulf or if I could recreate Operation Preying Mantis. It basically boils down to your gaming poreferences. Some folks like to have their content on a plate, and some say, well I want to change this, or change that and have the content I want, and end up going that way. The latter types get more from sandboxes. Yet it's a kind of unofficial thing that each module comes with training missions and at least one cammpaign on the default map. Which is defined as 10 missions.

Still doesn't work even with the added inference on his post. The assets are currently already sorted by country, then task/role for airplanes (if it's an airplane), then for ground units by air defence, artillery, unarmed, missiles etc etc, then they are sorted alphabetically. Any combination of filter using date of manufacture doesn't work. First example that came to mind was "Filter units by modern, post 2000" You get a JF-17 and a Charlie Hornet Lot20. That's it. OK then set the date filter to post 1993. Now you have some more, but hold on, where are the Soviet air defences? You would have to set a date filter back to 1959 to get a AAA ZSU-23, which is still commonly in use today. Using my Ogaden crisis example where they began with Sabre's and Mustangs.... what date era is that? 1945? 1960. 1973? What date would a Lee Enfield rifle be from? What equipment would an insurgent force carry? Consider that modern armies sell on their old stuff to 3rd world nations, who inevitably re-use it to kill their neighbours (that's why the US and the UK are so rich by the way) so... Pattons... just saw them on TV in Turkey. T-62... everywhere. T-72... jeesh is it actually old? ZSU's, in fact, lets just take everything Soviet manufactured and handed out for free in 1993. It's a waste of time to filter by date. Often decent calibre guns last a long long time. Soviet GRAD MLRS? It's practically a multiple firework launcher, still used in Ukrainian annexation along side ZSU's but manufactured long before we were born. The units in the world today couldn't give two hoots about a date filter. Some were very short lived, some lasted 50 years and over. None of them abided by any of the same rules and thus any attempt at ordering them by date would be futile, and any attempt at actually filtering them to not show would exclude significant assets that coexist in the same timeframe but were built decades apart. I'd suggest that the folks suggesting dates don't actually know when things appeared or recognise any of the names. If you would just say that then your answer would be a 2D picture at the top of the unit and you could say, "ahh, that's old stuff, I think, i wont have it".

The "other one" used OpenGL rendering. It's archaic, 5 hampsters on amphetamines could power better gfx. OpenGL makes absolutely no effort to find the textures before they are called so it's in a constant state of surprise-shock and has to make new calls for the textures every time. This is another example of people only reading the bottom line improvements on "some" configurations and ignoring that actual reasons why there is an improvement. And it begins a dangerous hype train that becomes uncontrollable and then when the wheel comes off, pitchforks come out and it all goes wrong.

You've missed the last ten years of conversation on the damage modelling. TLDR; it's right around the corner and slightly delayed. by 9 years and a month ;)

Right, and he's saying we COULD have made it that bad, but we didn't. I loved the post above talking about sand in the crevices years after. Makes me think of trying to clean dog hair from the car. Basically, the poor soldiers farting and puking and kicking around in these buckets make a mess that's never entirely eradicated. A certain amount of wear and tear is more realistic than factory new. As long as the wear and tear isn't detracting from seeing the names on the switches it is still more realistic and it's more immersive.

No. You did not think this through. Soviet inventory from 50's, in use today. Ethiopian Sabres were alongside Mustangs at the start of the Ogaden war in the 70's, that ended in a Mig21 vs F-5 fight, but apart from many examples like that, DCS is built as a sandbox and the entire point of a sandbox is that if you want to have F-14's meeting Japanese zeros in the Bermuda triangle because you liked the film, why should someone that can't scan down a list of planes in the ME stop you?

I found a warnign with duplicate names was put in, but still there are errors and can corrupt your mission. I lost some hours work due to that, DictKey renaming and corrupted miz. The only way to use the templates safely is to put them in first, make sure it's correct, then build your mission. with a backup.

Oooh cool, a topic telling the developers what to do, Love it. What about a thread telling customers how to spend their money? Oh wait we have those too, and they are also ignored :( There's just no point in these threads. When they choose to release it in whatever state they want, then you can purchase and give feedback. If you want to wait for others feedback, then guess what, no one denied you the opportunity to wait. I've found that I can join the EA train and be involved and I can also choose to wait and both work out great! I do this with the products I want to feedback on and the ones I don't. I don't understand why people want to enforce their own wills on others by effectively denying any form of EA on another person by saying, "Release only when done". That's like saying, "I am unable to choose to wait myself, I will feel compelled to buy it and try to play it because I don't have a brain and I am an automaton." Quite embarrassing really. Nearly as embarrassing as begging to be involved in the early inside testing, which is what the OP boils down to when you cut away the fluff.

That big space game that crashes and is barely playable after 11 years with a multi million dollar funding base? Wow, You've just made DCS:World look the best game & simulation ever! Vulkan being touted as a saviour to mankind needs to stop. Versus DX12 it's not producing significant advantage on many FPS platforms, such as Doom, the reviews I saw which were very specific showed almost no gains on Nvidia and the effect was on AMD cards and their terrible drivers. The effect of Vulkan on Xplane is still to be capitalised on, a lot of people having stutter hell and seeing no difference and that was with Nvidia cards after an update from OpenGL, which is substantially inferior to DX11. I think there is a potential there as a system CPU bottlenecked to make VR less stuttery and give some benefits, but at the same time I think people are making this the great Hope and not being realistic. I'd like to see some of the expensive and non realtime calculations take place off the main thread, I still think that would give us way more performance and less burst CPU activity that is the cause of most of the stutters, especially in VR. Even the "infantry simulator" and it's CPU bottlnecking issues have been slightly diluted over the years by pushing AI calcs to another thread or even another server. But A3 got more financial success and it's still nothing amazing in the performance department and DCS is actually making good strides to take something from before the A3 generation to look better than something after the A3 generation. This is quite an achievment actually. Rather than DCS2 we got DCS1 upgraded in front of our eyes. I'm still laughing thinking of the DCS:W 1.2 infantry sprites and what we have now. There is a massive technical overhead to keep a game playable and update it through an entire generation of software. Which is one of the reasons I asked Kate when enough is enough on the old engine and one of the few questions that didn't get answered satisfactorily (she was probably on her third day of answering stupid questions and exhausted) There's a lot of things DCS can do to optimise, but the low hanging fruit has now been picked clean, whatever comes next is now painful, long and costly.

I think Nick Grey said a new ED standard model+texture and animation from end to end took tens of thousands of dollars. Whilst I was shocked I sat and thought it out and yeah, it's costly to develop these beautiful models they create. So whilst yeah, "give us all the things" and I am +1 on the ships tbh, I can't see many happening. Also this is a bit of an issue with having a base game that is brief on certain units, because it suggests the base game isn't getting many units added that already fit into the WW2 assets and the WW2 assets is budgetted for and might be coming to an end. I don't know.

Folks I've asked the forum mods about solutions for the thread and then we can go with whatever works for them. I'm not sure they'd like a shared account, but it should be feasible to merge this under a new post, something like that, if I'm guessing right. Following that, it's very important we get a greenlight for merging Dev to live branch, then the relevant new thread can highlight this, with correct links and we can nail both our biggest support painpoints in one go. (people using 2018 moose and people being unable to find the right branch and up to date docs etc etc) Should fix a lot of sad people trying to start using a scripting framework to do simple things.

Folks, the error 2020-04-18 04:17:46.248 WARNING EDOBJECTS: RegMapStorage has no more IDs 2020-04-18 04:17:46.248 ERROR EDOBJECTS: Failed assert `false` at Projects\edObjects\Source\Registry\RegMapStorage.cpp:42 is caused when DCS reaches a hard limit for ID for new groups. I've attached a mission which explains the 4092 limit to group spawns. That's the cause of one issue but not quite the root cause of why the excessive spamming occurs. From the OP's massive log full of errors, the server was up for three days constantly spawning aircraft as far as I can see. After a couple of days it ran out of ID's and began filling with errors. The reason for that I can't quite tell looks like a script was misconfigured - both Airboss and A2A_Dispatcher were RTBing aircraft in the same minute. Moose was also out of date. I don't know why they RTB'd immediately, it's not normal, the admin will have to figure that out by themself, it's not a DCS bug, it's a limit caused by a misconfiguration. If you want to see the 4000 group limit in action, run the attached mission, so you know that I know what I'm talking about and read your logs and you will see it generate that error at 4000. As for the second mission, not sure what that was all about, have no idea what was running on it, but it too ran out of ID's and worse. Point of note. DCS is not designed for long running play and the expectation your server can stay up for 3 days is wrong. No, that is not written anywhere else that i know of, but a history of crashng and hard limtis and the single sortie design legacy is why most sensible admins reboot their servers often, seek persistence methods and read their logs before issue occur. Case in point, the kings of tuning, the Buddyspike team long discovered a 3-4 hour intense MP mission was about as much as was reliable. My own server can make 12 hours most good months depending on the patch. YMMV. nomoreIDTest.miz

+1, and this year they have also been way more chatty and connecting and given a lot of free trials. A lot of feel good vibe going around.

I think the B-17 concept is many folks dream, listening to the human effort involved from Nick Grey talking about what it takes for single seaters, and with a reasonable out-take on the process, this would be something almost inconceivable by way of complexity and time. The up-front cost of millions of space bucks to produce this would need a redesign of what Early access really is, the numbers would definitely surprise everyone. Alone, comparing a single cockpit render in polys and effort to the interior of the Fortress done to ED standard, is a staggering multiplication. Then you have multiplayer networking and Single player automation, the AI for example has to handle a single player jumping into the bombers position and fly the run in realistically rather than some drunk current AI, all those stations need to act to do their part or relinquish to a single player, or combination of players. I think I'd like to see the real numbers on this, a proper investigation to cost, it would need an entire studio of at least 50 folks working on this full time for years, like a product on it's own. I'm sure they have had at least a couple of possibly short discussions on it over the years, I wonder what the real requirements are and if the customers pockets could support it? I know made up figures are made up, but lets multiply a single module by crew members in a B-17 for a bit and consider that as the starting price, would anyone be interested in a $600 module? The "giving a left kidney" metaphor might have to stretch to both kidneys? Star Citizen is still going making this sort of complexity of ship. I'd love to listen to Nick, Wags and Kate, all having a dinner party with a chalkboard and doign the evaluation for this after too many sherries, it would make a great Youtube video!

Which is a shame because they added a dispersion from the two existing WW2 ships that allows a lot more tracer and gunfire without the pinpoint accuracy. I do like a dispersion effect or at least something human about shooting to protract the gunfighting. Obviously it's WIP and such, but it is top of my own list for AI human gunnery, nect to damage modelling. Amazing looking objects though.