Pikey

I tested it, its working.

I've verified S_EVENT_PLAYER_ENTER_UNIT and S_EVENT_PLAYER_LEAVE_UNIT on the current public build. From Mission Editor, as client or player slot, both work. From MP, both work as the host only. From MP as a client, both fail to fire, as already reported. S_EVENT_BIRTH was fine in all circumstances S_EVENT_TOOK_CONTROL, I have never seen work.Never used it an dnot sure how its supposed to work. We did see that you can additionally not get the S_EVENT_PLAYER_ENTER_UNIT to trigger if the script is launched in a single player mission with no other slots (true player experience) but this is due to a timing issue as the script and player begin running at the same time. It's expected. It would have saved a lot of time if the script or mission had been supplied in a working state.

OK, OK, you want realism and immersion and you are going to use saved games and time speedups to achieve it. That wouldn't work for me at least, but there might be a way to put the carrier off the map anyway because the coastlines might be drawn out like they are with some of the other maps. If you are playing offline I reckon i could mod/script that if it's going to be popular.

If the map is to be 'centered on Bagdad', just under 150NM away is Kermanshah and we can have a good old 80's disco over the Zagros mountain range with an ever-increasing 80's lineup of modules from the golden era of air combat. That's less distance to Mosul in the north, Basrah in the south and the border to the west which is just a big vacuum of nothingness. So basically, there's nothing around here but the Iranian border and the Tigris and Euphrates if you ignore the mountains in the northeast between Iran. The problem seems to be that everyone wants to simulate GW1, carrier ops and 900-1000 mile round trips. Why? There's no save game, I've read popular social media where seemingly no one has more than 15 minutes to fly. At the very least a 70 mile flight to the merge over some mountains has to be the most favorable 'game'. The Navy were guarding their own anyway and weren't playing that much due to technical reasons. It's always so weird what people say they want. I expect someone to make a new game-breaking original content video on this comment next week, how Afghanistan doesn't work for DCS, when I've said it for years.

Hi, If you wish to know when a non-US country first had access to a specific weapon, read on. You might want to pick a specific year for a country and Wikipedia doesn't tell you anything more than the native country's in-service date. E.g. AIM-9L in-service 1976, sold to Egypt in 1983-87 and Israel 1980. DCS Historic mode generally finds the in service date for the native producer of a weapon. However, a lot of third world (cold war non-aligned) countries made purchases and were provided with older weapons than the US deemed current. The period of the Cold war saw a lot of exporting of military equipment in order to satisfy political policy. So historical mode is often inaccurate for dates that apply to the importer. Not surprising, the details of this are painful to find. May I present, The Stockholm International Peace Research Institue (SIPRI) https://www.sipri.org/ Thanks to these folks, you can check the versions, arrival year and quantity. Sometimes there's bonus material in the comments like which airframe the missile was intended for. For example, Israel received 376 AIM-7E's from 1976-1982 but the comments say they were intended for their F-15 stock. So there's two simple steps for getting a list of exports sales from the Sipri database before you can nerd away with your scenarios. To download a list of exports from one country to another 1. Visit https://armstrade.sipri.org/armstrade/page/trade_register.php 2. Enter the Supplier, Recipient, year range and weapon system type 3. Check the radio box Print register of Suppliers 4. Download the rtf file. The rtf file is a load of unreadable garbage to any word processor built this century, so we need another set of steps to convert it to a readable PDF. To convert the rtf file to something readable 1. Visit https://products.groupdocs.app/viewer/total 2. Drag the rtf file from your browsers download folder onto the groupdocs app viewer where it says 'or drag it in this box'. 3. Once processed, In the top right of the screen will appear download PDF. You can now work out questions like, "Did Egypt have access to AIM-7E before 1979?" Or, "What version of Sidewinder did Iran have?" And use a source that, whether it's wrong or right, is not worth contesting without a lot of effort. Answer the nerd call! Know things! Sound like a CMO database in human form! Then wonder why the USAF say the AIM-9J in service was 1977^^ https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104557/aim-9-sidewinder/ . Enjoy!

Not seen that addition thing. Wires are problematic anyway, we've tried everything, animation states, guessing distance... Check with @funkyfranky though or join Moose DIscord to see if he's around.

it's not a simple script, that's why you couldn't do it, suggest you ask for help on the Discord server, the old methods needed slot blocker to kick people. https://discord.com/channels/378590350614462464/983485413060640778 There's a demo mission that could be adjusted to put the speed warnings in. Docs https://flightcontrol-master.github.io/MOOSE_DOCS_DEVELOP/Documentation/OPS.FlightControl.html Specific function https://flightcontrol-master.github.io/MOOSE_DOCS_DEVELOP/Documentation/OPS.FlightControl.html##(FLIGHTCONTROL).SetSpeedLimitTaxi

Before 2.9. The net effect of making a large dot suddenly disappear is worse than making a tiny dot disappear, especially at a critical moment, one of my personal issues with it. The other issues are: It's a default. Allowing choice should always be the default, not forcing people to have something they didn't ask for whether it's negative or not. It's not server-side configurable or enforceable (yet) - So right now, its basically dot neutral labels for everyone, enforced in MP. Great. It looks very different, depending on hardware (low res, big dot, high res it's somewhat reasonable, I liked it on my 4K screen, hate it in VR) It's nasty looking in VR. In VR I can't begin to explain but its really nasty seeing fighter-sized planes at 20nm as big black dots, just breaks immersion. That's the summary of my findings at least. This is divisive because not many seem to understand that this manifests according to your screen settings, so its going to get a bunch of disharmony on the forums and that brings out the subjectivity, when in fact, it's an implementation based on differences to start with. Objectively there are huge issues with the implementation and its no different from the scrapped imposter sprites a few years back.

Here is the disappearance factor issue. 10nm, see dot fine (remmeber, there is compression on the recording and in VR this is magnified. watch the range count down and then...just disappears in close. This was never the case before.

The change affects targets viewed in low resolutions more than high resolutions. There's no account for screen resolution in the dot size, so pancake gets nicer dots (they are still dots and you can see them) but VR and 1080 gets big black holes of space stations. Again, its a setting implemented as a default, that enforces the setting before VR users can opt out and before server operators can enforce one way or another. It is absolutely back to front, objectively so. And more objectively, from a technical standpoint it has no effect inside 1.2 miles when you are in and out of that range in the circuit, and especially at the visual contact WVR when the dot flicks between on and off which makes it absolutely awful you can lose sight of a plane the CLOSER it gets. SO it affects you at the worst possible time, when you need to keep visual and has no benefit to anyone in the beyond 5miles range where you either a) can't shoot or B) have a radar - pick your 'either or'. So who does this actually benefit? Anyone thankful for this is obviously playing this sim in a completely different way that I cannot fathom.

This is what happens when vocal minorities are listened to. This was nothing I ever wanted or asked for and its only made VR exceptionally bad by default. Watching dogfights from 20 miles removes the point of a radar, WW2 is now like watching a beehive tipped out, in modern combat people are now fox2 ambushing with radar off even more. How is this a good idea for the game when it changes the entire nature of multiple groups of players? The only people who benefit are offline players who can do what they like with the sims settings anyway. Multiplayer online group is stuck with enforced settings. This has basically made the change without giving the option first, its classic EDSA kneejerk.

This might explain years of confused frustrations. Although the explanation will fall short of actually explaining it.

That function will fail (BattleCommander) now in this fix patch. Depending on which script it is in, depends on who to ask to update it. It's not part of Mist, it's either the ZoneCommander part belonging to Dzsekeb or the mission builder 'Obi' whoever that is, maybe they have a forum thread? Once they figure it out you can replace that line with what the author intended for it.

Foothold is a Mist based mission, I know that's still updated by Grimes, but I have no idea if that is impacted or how, I haven't tried it personally.

fwiw (this will get lost in about 2hrs) getCategory() was fixed after many years, maybe never worked since 1.2. This will break scritps because people will have learned how to use it over time and copy paste does the rest. If you have scripts with examples like: category = event.initiator:getCategory() if category == Object.Category.UNIT then This will fail because the return has changed to depend what the function was called on, for example it returns now; Unit.Category = { AIRPLANE = 0, HELICOPTER = 1, GROUND_UNIT = 2, SHIP = 3, STRUCTURE = 4 } Airbase.Category = { AIRDROME = 0, HELIPAD = 1, SHIP = 2, } Weapon.Category { SHELL = 0, MISSILE = 1, ROCKET = 2, BOMB = 3, } Beforehand it used to be fixed to this: {UNIT = 1, WEAPON = 2, STATIC = 3, BASE = 4, SCENERY = 5, CARGO = 6,} Moose is fine (if you immediately update) and SpecialK has updated a bunch of things but I expect here and there people will bump into this.

https://metro.co.uk/2023/03/15/one-in-six-people-cant-tell-the-time-on-a-normal-clock-18445913/ It's probably personal, but gauges with needles do offer advantages for brains where the speed of the needle, its peripheral motion and its distance between markers and shapes can paint all sorts of clues at a glance. Unfortunatley glancing and eye flicking is badly affected by VR sweetspots and lack of screen space for sims The movement of needles is super important to help with awareness, since your periphery is more attuned to movement. Now cockpits are adhering to text rules like "whitespace". Cockpit development is so amazing.

I asked about this also, just FYI. The "depends on" line in the unit lua states the requirement for a specific search radar unit to be in the group, when in reality a vast number of combinations were possible. I actually wanted to propose removing it entirely and using the entire sides radar view as the search authority to provide az/el for the tracking radar. That would need more behaviour change for tracking radars to adapt to, but it would also mean the birth of IADS. CUrrent system is like a foolproof way of telling people it has to work in one configuration only. Makes sense from a casual gamer pov, but anyone who knows anything will want the flexibility to have more. Maybe one day.

Mig-29A or a later red peer fighter. This is for everyone that likes a duel. All The Good Things that were started, to be finished. This is for common sense. Things like Clouds, weather, modules. For myself; in the order, of an FRS.1 circa 1982, an FRS.2 with Blue Vixen circa 1993, and failing that, a Harrier II + with aim-120 and harpoon or penguin (use the Spanish one if there's issues) A Sheffield class type42 AI.

This isn't down to the 0 to 1 waypoint not following the On Road is it?

Never tried it, just read it. Look slike it runs for each of the clients, doesnt look like AI

if it's working, and keeps doing the same thing, I'd suggest the script hasn't been updated in the miz file / remains unchanged. Drop a trk file of what happens and tag me if you do that and it remains the same.

I had to have a quick test again to see where large ground AI failed, to be fair its much improved over the years where my cynical answer would have been to not bother. Ground AI is really basic, without an "attack group" command its really unsatisfying to place groups next to each other and see them move only along the line of the route whilst firing, quite unnatural. I can't offer anything about scaling without coming up with a huge test, the feedback from servers is that you can put more units down than you used to. Here is what I think about company sized groups: "Don't". The ED formation procedure takes ages, and cant form up in woods or tight spaces - stick to small groups. Instead invest time building a class that puts platoons following a lead platoon, using bounding tactics, in order to slow down combat. Ground AI is so simplified that we have to do the thinking for it. We need some FSM's - "under fire", "covering", "bounding", "suppressed" using events and tasks. We need to attach platoons to lead platoons to make company elements and move them in a more realistic way, but keeping that 3-4 group count. Similar to how the "follow" task works but better. Then I might get interested in large scale combat again. Otherwise its just chaos.

none taken. the Net methods in the API that are placed in the saved games\dcs\scripts\hooks directory had an API written 2015 that was at the time, server only. In late 2021 ED allowed the net class to be reached from the client side so server code coudl be executed, which was pretty cool, but I think it was a quiet thing that didn't get announced. I convinced Thomas to write the wrapper the following year: https://flightcontrol-master.github.io/MOOSE_DOCS_DEVELOP/Documentation/Wrapper.Net.html Not many people are aware of this, I was just helping out. I also did a blocking scripting form the mission environment that using the net class to ckick to spectators all from mission scripting. https://github.com/thebgpikester/MPSG So, hope none is taken but this is the part where MOOSE and the SSE isn't solely client side, it can be run from the server and executed as the server all from the Misison environment without a single addon or hook.. If you need any help understanding the scope of the client environment when run as a server I'd be happy to explain it. Edit: (addition) I did pick up that you were talking about restarting the entire sim because these are enumerated during start up. This is why its annoying and using mission takes much less to debug. The only limitaiton is that you need to run as a server (but that option was added to the Misson Editor about the same time)

Any unit, any static. A house static you spawn in a neutral airbase 2km zone will capture it. A portable tacan or an RAF firetruck will capture a red airbase and turn it blue null