Pikey

Thank you indeed for feeding back, this is a fairly common question and I will relay to MOOSE discord and sticky this information, several people will be delighted this can be done! Cheers!!!!!

I've found most of the things I've shared over the years, people improved on, and the rest, people just wanted to know how they could change it so it worked the way they wanted it. I've never seen anything that original or decent that wasn't shared already. Having said that, for our server we do call the files off the network, because it's easier to change them and share on a dev box. One mess up and you can change it in flight and the next reboot its done, whereas embedded scripts require repacking them and cannot be done to a live server whilst running, requiring downtime at the reboot or stopping it completely, neithe rof which you want to do from a phone when you are out. I could easily precompile and pack them to keep idiots away, but I find people ignore it more if you actually put it up on Github. Go figure. There's nothing worth hiding these days. Fame and fortune is for the greedy.

HA! omg, i was thinking yesterday... "I'm sure there was a tacan here, it was always so difficult to get inside the canyon"

Exactly. I just want 2.5.6 lighting with 2.5.5 right now. Rushing modules out when things are all over the place is begging for more drama

I don't remember anyone having luck with the intellisense part so you are on your own here. If you do have any luck try sharing your findings here and on Moose Discord if possible, I know a great many people would like to move away from LDT.

I think we all share that sentiment. It's a bit hard to get anyone to use it whilst it's not got those in cockpit features, that's the other edge of the double edged sword that is OB.

This has been known forever. If ED were wanting to change it, they would have.

I think so based on what I see in the design. I think to meet your requirements the message would be On demand only, and the actual menu item would be force removed each time it was called and force added on the timer. That's why I said you have to decouple the menu part as it's doing the menu higher up. It's a bit messy to consider an easy solution, but short of having a timer running for each player (not a good solution) you would have a central timer and each time the function was executed, remove the menu until the timer is up and then rebuild the menu.

Why are you asking about Lua? Lua is not where the magic happens, Lua is an embedded language. If this is about an interface between games like DCS, arma and Command you will be using Lua for only tiny parts of that, right at the end. First issue is none of these games will agree on coordinates. Assuming Arma had a PG or Caucasus map in the works. Do you have a professional profile to share with us on your design experience? Previous projects perhaps? The question didnt come across well because of the way Lua was brought up.

For VR workflow it's awkward. DCS supplies a customisable kneeboard for simple 2D work. It will accept a copy paste of most images and is quite ratio friendly, but keep to the ratio to avoid distortion. I use a small tool for copying and pasting in VR https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=229077 good for coordinates on the fly like CAS, although nothing beats touch typing skills or binding your UFC numbers to numpad. There is a full on VR tool https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=246970 that I am yet to try out, mostly because I can't find my old tablet. Dont bother with trackir, I gave mine away after a decade of customer loyalty, you cannot swap between them and "de-helmeting" from VR once in it is about as fun as stopping sex half way.

You purchased that in one shot? Here we go girls and boys, this is your proof that it's not worth aiming for "Fighter pilot". Airliners is where the moneys at! :P Advice... be very patient with DCS. It takes a long time to get used to it and it's quirks. It has a bit of a glass ceiling and can cause frustration. The frustration is mitigated by some of the most compelling multiplayer experiences I've had in any PC game, where humans bring everything. But there is a wide variety of experiences to be had. Finding the right group (and there are plenty of real world aviators and such in groups) is vital to help you over the bumps with the software. Take the Hornet, since the F-16 is a bit behind in development and you are getting both (and then become addicted and want to fly anything) you can afford to wait a bit whilst the development catches up. Please do look at all the modules, the current array of full modules has some extraordinary differences in them. One of the most compelling things is watching the cockpit designs and workflows evolve from Post war all the way through 50 years, like how the early Migs took something of the German and British designs both, and then trying to get your head around Russian design philosophy. Assuming you are interested in aviation in general. That might be some years down the road, the American jets will take some time to chew through anyway.

A little script to explode any unit over 50% damaged would help. I do this with AI planes that are colliding or taking their sweet time or stuck somewhere in some scenery. If DCS AI was better there wouldnt be so many "bullets to the back of the head for subordination" Most feared job by AI? Has to be boom operator on a multiplayer server.

Post back if you get it fixed at some point, I have plenty more, including Bridges that AI dont want to pass under (superstition) Flyovers and junctions and slip roads that confuse routing to go backwards Routing that was decided by an out of date Garmin map from the 1940's Hopefully one day routing is more reliable and AI moving didnt crash multiplayer servers, until then, might be best to create multiple waypoints and switch on road/offroad, or if spawning without a route template, routing off road to a zone, then routing it back on when it arrives in zone (yes, lots of code just to get a truck to go somewhere)

You talk of this nirvana, sir. I'm sure the only reason there is so much bad flying is because of four button joysticks with everything mapped to "FIRE". Also you can't say that on these forums or someone will call you an elistist nerd and attack your way of life ;)

This looks like how the A-10C pilots caused much SRS support in the begining. The volume knobs on the radios defaulted to 0 and folks didnt understand how they couldn't hear on the radio because they forget to operate their radio Raisuli - AWACS and menu comms from the game have nothing to do with SRS and player conversations. Your screen messaging from Awacs, wingman do not use your configured radio volume in cockpit. However, if you have realistic radios set, then they do observe if you have them on and tuned to the correct frequency. However, SRS, for the complete modules and not FC3, will observe everything set in the cockpit, including volume, modulation, and often the power setting too, if the set has one. Also includes encrypted raido support where the module has it. You probably didnt hear anyone because .. humans. And often you get humans log into SRS, ignore it and speak on Discord or a.n.other comms. And yes, one day you will call buddy spike, on the correct frequency and some dipshit will shoot you down anyway. Because... humans.

It's the same with normal airports. AI does it's figure 8 lineups at an airbase, usually with wheels down and afterburner and for some reason, and even more so now, on an empty airport, it just fails to line up and repeats the fig 8 approach many times. It can go either way, there's no reproducibility about it, it's inconsistent (and I believe the plane type even affects this). I've no idea what the AI algorithm is waiting for. Had the airbase/carrier had something going on on the ground, I'd understand it was queuing for some ATC, but I've absolutely reproduced with the only airplane in the sky and a free airport. Can be 2-10 times that it loops up to ejection from no fuel. Also, not sure if it was anything to do with giving the plane an RTB comand or something Task related in the SSE.

Had a quick peek. OK so, the design makes this difficult, the menu is built every 5 secs on line 179 along with th etarget collection after, and takes the settings of either having regular updates or on demand updates. Would be a lot of effort to unpick that as you would have to decouple the ondemand call from entire menu function, but If you set to only ondemand and raise the timer, they will only get the last update (I think!). That's the fastest workaround I can think of. But I dont know if your objective is to discourage player use or just give delayed updates. Depending on that, depends on whether this is useful or not. function ewrs.update() timer.scheduleFunction(ewrs.update, nil, timer.getTime() + 5) ewrs.buildActivePlayers() ewrs.buildF10Menu() end Otherwise you need to dive in to the dreaded line '666' and pull all that out into a seperate function on a seperate timer.

Baked in reflections are so horrible for VR. For 2D I think it somewhat adds something. An option would be awesome.

It took me maybe an hour in MOOSE (and I'm an idiot) to do a bespoke one from scratch rather than change an existing one, I know that is slightly unhelpful but the point is, that the MOOSE absolutely simplifies heavy scripting and stops the need to rely on folks' existing work and editing, which is often harder than starting from scratch. Happy to share the core of the message below and you can easily read it as a non coder and work out the simplicity, maybe folks can start to see the advantages over more basic frameworks. --FUNCTION CONVERTS INTEGER HEADING TO CARDINAL function bearingToCardinal(hdg) if hdg >= 0 and hdg <= 22 then return "NORTH" elseif hdg >= 23 and hdg <= 66 then return "NORTH-EAST" elseif hdg >= 67 and hdg <= 101 then return "EAST" elseif hdg >= 102 and hdg <= 146 then return "SOUTH-EAST" elseif hdg >= 147 and hdg <= 201 then return "SOUTH" elseif hdg >= 202 and hdg <= 246 then return "SOUTH-WEST" elseif hdg >= 247 and hdg <= 291 then return "WEST" elseif hdg >= 292 and hdg <= 338 then return "NORTH-WEST" elseif hdg >= 339 then return "NORTH" end end --FUNCTION BRAA message function braa(PlayerClientObj,rngGroup ) GroupNumber = rngGroup:GetSize() if GroupNumber == 1 then GroupWords = "SINGLETON" elseif GroupNumber == 2 then GroupWords = "TWO-SHIP" elseif GroupNumber == 3 then GroupWords = "HEAVY" end local grpLeadUnit = rngGroup:GetUnit(1) local tgtCoord = grpLeadUnit:GetCoordinate() local currentCoord = PlayerClientObj:GetCoordinate() local hdg = UTILS.Round(rngGroup:GetHeading()/100,1)*100 local bearing = UTILS.Round(currentCoord:HeadingTo(tgtCoord),0) local rangeMetres = tgtCoord:Get2DDistance(currentCoord) local rangeNM = UTILS.Round( UTILS.MetersToNM(rangeMetres), 0) local aspect = tgtCoord:ToStringAspect(currentCoord) local alt = UTILS.Round(UTILS.MetersToFeet(grpLeadUnit:GetAltitude())/1000,0)--*1000 if rangeNM <= 3 then MESSAGE:New("BIGFOOT, FAT 3, MERGED.", 15):ToBlue() else MESSAGE:New("GROUP ".. GroupWords .. ", BRAA, ".. bearing .. ", "..rangeNM.." miles, ANGELS "..alt..", ".. aspect ..", TRACK " .. bearingToCardinal(hdg).." , SPADES.", 15):ToBlue() end endTo make that a full GCI (it was only for one target) I'd take a list of all red air groups and build a single message with that function executed on each of them. For WW2, not sure what format they would use for the message, this is obviously modern, but the end result of mine is more accurate than anything else I've seen out there (for modern NATO types) including the inbuilt AWACS call. I was considering doing a voice for it, that was a lot more effort in fact, as I'd have liked to use the RADIO module in MOOSE to generate line of sight and attentuation of the radio call, but apparently that causes message clipping which affects the spacing of number and message calls and makes it sound bad. I never wanted to recreate EWRS for that mission, just a quick custom call. Pretty sure it could go further with a lot of effort to do an entire GCI simulation, using New Picture and checking in mechanics, popup and threat calls, converting from Bullseye to Tactical at the 30nm mark, dropping fillers inside 30nm, breaking the timing from minutes above a certain range to 15s in close all automatically or with options... but honestly I've lost my motivation with scripting after ED willfully destroyed a lot of scripting in 2.5.6 and keep shunting visuals over core despite all of what they said at the begining of the year. TLDR; you have choices, choose the exact messaging yourself rather than bend something else.

Great stuff! Next week someone else will have the same problem because of the way DCS works. Feel free to pile in and tell them how it works/doesn't work/behaves unexpectedly/is silly* *delete as appropriate. :)

He is, he's being very helpful and there are many more folks also doing that. For NTTR fix ask Eagle Dynamics, they broke airbases, not us.

Copy and paste the contents. This is a github problem so direct your complaints to Microsoft. You are not the first to find this stupid/confusing at all. There's nothing we can do about that because Moose is generated dynamically when people make code changes and when it's compiled it sits there but not as a file, just as a vomit of code on a web page.

aye. If you use the slot type of "Client" which works as a multiplayer slot, you get presented with the slot selection screen. At this point the mission is paused and no scripts have run. If you press escape immediately, you get a spectator view and scripting starts. If you press Escape again, you get the slot screen again, but this time since the script is running, it will find you entered the slot and things happen. EDIT: as a player type slot the same issue will happen I think, except youve been directly taken to the slot marked player and didnt need to select it. Unless you can get out of that role and back in, you choices will be limited to making it a client again. It's all about the chicken and the egg. Script needs to start before you get there, whcih is always the normal case with multiplayer, but in single player can be a bit off.

just showing up to another Phantom thread with my support. I hope that the 2 seat aspect is not too challenigng to make fun for a DCS module but I suspect that's what makes this thing late to the party. Wasn't completely happy about the E version though, would want to see a carrier version.

Yeah it's puzzling to not see the famous D-30 in game.