Pikey

One thing I noticed when looking for a function by name, was, the routing of where to start. I've got about four pages bookmarked, class functions, singleton functions, enums which are always useful https://wiki.hoggitworld.com/view/DCS_enum_weapon_flag and the tasking one. I find that finding things and navigating is hard on the site. So I don't I just try each page for a function not realising their differences. For example. To find getResourceMap() and starting at the home page --> https://wiki.hoggitworld.com/view/Simulator_Scripting_Engine_Documentation You need to know that getResourceMap() is in the Warehouse class to click --> https://wiki.hoggitworld.com/view/DCS_Class_Warehouse Then this isn't a list of functions, in fact, its not listed as a member function? It's a static function, whatever that means and its lower on the page. For idiots like me at least, a big bucket of functions would make more sense than different pages that don't make sense. Maybe just understanding why they are split could help me to find what I was looking for? It probably makes sense to someone, and I don't have great ideas on a different way of doing it, so I apologise, but I think it's hard to navigate and find things.

the string is weapons.missiles.AIM_9 for the 9M. It's an anomaly for sure. Once you have a look at the print out from the warehouse it should be easy to use. hth.

These, like many API commands aren't mirrored in the Trigger actions. Trigger actions pertain to DCS Worlds standard mission-as-a-session format. With extended missions it reaches beyond your typical one session scenario and I would say this is aimed at long running or multiplayer missions to make the best use of it. For the Airbase API commands that werent mentioned in the change logs, you can use the TRIGGER DO SCRIPT and write the command directly, thereby using the same mechanism of having no script file (albeit, its the same thing) You can also copy scripts into these triggers to make them a trigger, so its a bit of a blurred line. Unit:getAmmo() returns wsTypes() afaik? If so then then the wsTypes is an enumeration that misbehaves and changes so its not good for use. However, may I introduce you to getResourceMap() released today which translates wsType to friendly name and makes your life much easier? If you use getInventory() on the warehouse you will get friendly names like SWS.SimpleWarehouse["Kobuleti"]["weapon"]["weapons.bombs.AB_250_2_SD_10A"] = 100 the wsTypes is a 4 letter code where the last two aren't always the same. That API feature can fix this issue you speak of.

Technically you can add the weapons and fuel at spawn time to keep AI going when there is nothing left in the WH, but really the better option is to granularly handle the players pylon by pylon which has been requested a long time back. I'm hopeful that if we all say thanks, then we might get such a gift again and some sort of pylon checking will eventually come.

Download from https://github.com/thebgpikester/SWS Put it in your mission, Run Once DO SCRIPT - SWS.lua PREREQS Requires lfs and io desanitized from missionscripting.lua. No 3rd party SSE like Mist or Moose required. WHAT IT DOES Gets the contents of all DCS Airbase warehouses in the mission and saves them to file. Reloads from the save every mission. (no prompts) USAGE Load this script at mission start as a DO SCRIPT. By default, DCS sets unlimited warehouses. Set some warehouses to have limited contents by clicking on them in the Mission Editor and unchecking 'Unlimited' next to any of aircraft, fuel and weapons. Set a fixed limit amount. Optionally, setup supply chains as per pg 104 DCS user manual EN 2020.pdf in your main DCS installation\Doc folder. CONFIGURABLE ITEMS SWS.filepath = lfs.writedir().."SimpleWarehouse.lua" You can configure a custom directory for the save file here if needs be. SWS.updateDelaySeconds = 60 You can change the timer interval for the saving of warehouses here. Now the waffle Administrators and mission makers can now consider warehouse contents in their mission creation flow. Previously we only used "unlimited" warehouse resources such as fuel, aIrcraft, and weapons because we had no way to save, persist, add or subtract from the DCS warehouses. Now we do. For a primer on how some of the weirder things work with the DCS Resource Manager, see For the documentation, see pg 104 DCS user manual EN 2020.pdf in your main DCS folder. There really is a lot to this hidden gem. The usecase for the script is that rather than set pacing of how an extended mission that runs for days works out, the AI is restricted by what is in the DCS Warehouse. There's several ways you can accomplish a "logistical win-lose" mini game in DCS mission editor: - Use the existing Resource Manager, set finite limits, no supply chains - first one to empty loses. - Use DCS Supply chains from warehouse to warehouse, empty the enemy coalition warehouse before you are crippled. - Use finite limits and add your own supply chains using the new API functions to add and remove fuel, units, weapons. - Use fantastic mods like the Hercules mod (soon-to-be-a-thing) and just your own plane and inventory to add resources to a warehouse by landing at the desired aifield and releasing control of the airframe and going to spectators. - Use AI to land at the desired airfield and shutdown, which achieves the same thing by adding the fuel, airframe and weapon loadout to the airbase warehouse. As a parting thing, I'd expect to see this used slowly at first because its a major Server design paradigm shift. Most people have their existing methods. You should see mods like DAWS freely embrace this, with hope, MOOSE may pick it up and utilize the new API functions. Its very easy to create a F-16 factory and having realistic bombing targets now. We relaly need bombing, but previously it was kindda pointless. Happy scripting.

Thanks ED, definitely a big directional change to support the foundations of the core things people love to use out there. ALready written a persistent warehouse system from this: https://github.com/thebgpikester/SWS SImple Warehouse Saving.

those are default, you need to add one of your own

It's being played right now. The sands swirl around the post-apocalyptic barren desert that used to be called Syria. A long fleet of mish-mashed vehicles made from Toyota's, Hyundais with fabricated armor plates rocket systems bolted on their backs, and ex-Soviet material, trundle around an old deserted military airfield, once the mighty Syrian Arab Army's holdings, now up for grabs for anyone in an F-14A they found in a lockup. The sand storms maybe switched off, but in every other respect you are looking for 4YA's PvE servers.

Damn that's five years ago. A lot has changed. And a lot hasn't. 'A degree or ten years relevant work experience'

The legacy of fc3 will live beyond mac i feel. Theres folks in this thread defending their favourite jets and their favourite adversaries. I cant believe ed would remove them either when their presence on servers is effectively optional. As long as their are multiple opinions fc3 is staying alongside. But i dont share the views on restricting fidelity in some sort of attempt to crank more volume of modules out the door. Other games do that, ed is not copying them. Eagles business has long been stated to aim for the most realism possible. Yeah...it takes lifetimes. Sure, we all get frustrated. Yes the redfor limitation is sad. Thats why i personally have a bit more hope for the older and simpler stuff, but never to the exclusion of any part of dcs. I remember the vitriol in the forums when the P51 was announced, back when my kids were still in primary school. Folks bring back the same argument about the Corsair and forget that a thousand miles is started with a single step. MAC wont divide anything. It will just give some folks a better home or a nicer launch pad into the big modules. We need more people to stick around and buy those modules, to buy more developers, to speed up dev time, so we can live long enough to see whatever module is our own favourite. Thats the only way we win. I hope eagle shares more news for you soon.

I had this last night. There wasn't a reproducible sequence I could see, but its characterized by the azimuth bar number moving impossibly fast and the sweep itself disappearing. Off and on didnt fix, I dunno how you managed to get out of it, or what it is yet.

Camp David accords really changed the orbats of this theater - 1-3 billion USD per side from 1982. So its all in the date as to what to expect. Egypt is fairly easy to work with. DCS has it's limitations with SAM group composition that makes it work, but actually you do see search radars in these installations also, sometimes. Typically on the copy/paste SA2 sites the tracking radar is on the large elevated center building, the launchers around then you have 1 or two elevated ramped sites for a combination of Search radar or EWR. The crosses with four bunkers are for a SHORAD unit, the missile storage and loader wagons are sat in the corners of the site. For DCS you can swap between systems 2,3,6 at will and I've even done the setup with the S60/S57+firecan for an anti air artillery battery (which is woefully underused online, come on guys, get with the FUN)) I don't think I will do a template this time around because at least in Egypt's case, a lot of these sites are dummy sites and they will have mixed things up as you would expect for any military force. People creating battlespace templates should attempt to use SAM templates that switch between live and offline/dummy at mission start. For Israel, only thing I noticed was that the Patriot system launcher sites have berms that are in the wrong directions - i.e. they dont shield the blast. I coudlnmt work out how to orient them as Patriot is a very 'pointy' system that should always be lined towards the threat axis.

So the way heuristics work is that if a file hash has never been seen before by an antivirus, it reports it as suspicious because it doesn't know any better. The logical minds would say: Does my antivirus know better about a file its never seen before, or Do I know better about a file I've never seen before? This happens every month.

The glint, or the "flash" of a reflective surface like a canopy is sorely missed, It's something that when flying you really notice as a blinding difference in the world compared to the sim. Anyone that's ever gone to an airport and looked down at the parked cars on a sunny day only to get frazzled by a reflection will tell you. Also, I've noticed reflections from locations dozens of miles away at the limit of the haze that a car screen or mirrored surface has a huge range it can go through.

I can confirm sporadic comments over the years about this phenomenom. It messes up a lot of in/out detection. ALso... Ive never seen a world search done with a square world.VolumeType.BOX any takers to see if this is reliable?

fyi the MOOSE creator logged this in 2017 He quit DCS waiting for it. I'd recommend not waiting, for your own sanity. I use the Birth event personally then do the working out from there.

The AN/ASQ-213 HARM targeting system was shipped in the 2000's, and is not a Radar Warning Reciever. It catalogs and triangulates emissions against a mapping system that fine tunes the location in 3 dimensions over time, beginning with several miles of possibility and getting down to high precision in range and azimuth depending on the aircraft movements, which allows missiles to be optimally flighted for range and direction for Harms GPS modes. What I said was that the RWR is more accurate in Azimuth than it. The plane we are referencings against is from exactly the same decade. Thank you for reading carefully.

I think the release is worthwhile Taz, as its basically a demo of 'what could be', for customers to get behind the value of optimization that you raised oh so long ago. I don't think you can or want to keep it updated, I've not seen two releases that didn't have changes in this area and people need to keep their expectations very low. But having done this and allowing more than just a few voices on the topic is a good thing for the general objective. It's good that you have been so passionate about this topic, it's the only thing that makes changes around here. I've no idea what the ED impact is so far, if they decide to go back over them and convert them we will all know if that happens.

I don't know about the rest of you, but as a frequent flier of most of the warbirds and an expert in precisely none, I was trying to understand why I always got inconsistent and confusing heading behaviors with the navigation equipment in the Warbirds. There are numerous topics with queries with the same root cause. Searching for bugs I sat down and performed tests on all the warbirds except the I-16. There are some interesting results to share, not least because it will help demystify how they are setup and used. First of all, what tests did I do? Air start, active pause, known heading - record the Radio compass (RI), the magnetic compass, and any Directional Gyro (DG) readings to compare. Runway start - known runway heading (single player only) same as above. Findings In the image, green numbers are as expected and within tolerance, orange is where there is some doubt, and red is just crazy silly. See the chart. Generally, the golden rule is to never trust your DG at the start of a mission. Rule 2 is that the RI's and German birds can't handle the three point attitude on the floor so are only reliable in straight and level flight. This may confuse on the runway lineup or during turns. You have to keep returning to wings level and trim to ensure a good reading. Spitfire, Mosquito and P-47's DG's are set to 000 ish for air starts P-51 DG is strangely set to true/grid north for some reason. For runway starts in Single Player the DG is about as useful as a chocolate teapot, you need to set it yourself. Idiosyncracies Spitfire - the hardest of these planes to navigate because the lubber line is missing on the P8 compass, the parallax is so great and the viewing angle so poor that you are better accepting a well-tuned DG setting at take-off and ignoring the P8 which is a really sad thing for navigators. That said, even the parallax is at most causing 5 degrees of ambiguity, so it's not completely useless if your DG really goes wrong. The P8 can also be used in 3 point attitude unlike all the other compass types, so there is that! However, the cockpit restrictions do not allow you to put a view right over the P8, so you cannot in 2D easily validate the heading from directly above. Advice: If route planning use short hops and visual handrails like rivers, coastlines or population centers. Unique buildings aside. Mosquito - The Mossie does have a lubber line you can read and the P8 is easier to read than the Spitfires, especially if you want to setup a quick view you can put the camera in the cockpit right over it. But, the RI is easier to read overall than the P8 as long as you are flying straight and level so is most likely superior. Just remember not to set the DG on the runway by using the RI, only the P8 initially, then after, the RI for accuracy. Since it's not actually a repeater of the P8, it's a separate system, it needs power and RPM too. The final note I did get some 4 degrees of error I couldn't work out which might be the classic modeling of interference all magnetic compasses are prone to. Planes, even recently were placed on a disc and checked against a known magnetic north direction. Here's proof of that P8 working in three-point pitch which most of the wheel and repeater types cannot do. P-47 - DG is messed up on the runway start and shows something random. The compass is quite tricky to read with 4 degrees of variance you may need to zoom in. Setup your DG once airborne because of the high three-point pitch in the Jug and the wheel type of compass. The DG is fairly redundant given the readability is the same as the compass. This might mean you can use the DG to tune specific legs of a course to 000 giving a better 'at a glance' use when holding a heading. P-51 - This has a decent RI but suffers from bank and pitch restrictions. it also seemed accurate on the runway lineup, until I realized that the P-51 is the only plane to line up a few degrees left for some reason (single player start from runway). The DG is also set to true north if you jump in the cockpit, unlike all the others. No idea why it's like that. German planes - All identical behavior, only work in level flight and since there is no DG to tune, you are Gucci from the get-go. I would advise setting the heading ring to align with the thick lines - i.e. turn the outer ring to the heading you need then line up the North arrow. The reason for this is visually it's so much easier to glance at the alignment of the two thick lines than squint at the smaller lines and try to work out what actual number in degrees this equates to. Do the hard work once by setting the heading for the leg, then the easy part is just aligning the north arrow, exactly how the P8 works. I-16 I didn't try but has a single magnetic "reel type" like the American standard with no DG. So that's it, since we have a map, a ruler a compass rose with true and magnetic readings, its no longer possible to get confused between any conversions. Trust the compass!

Well there we go, two people two answers. That's where we leave things.

the three layers are backgrounds only, you can trace out the borders with the lines tool and make all sorts of fills and writing and then you can keep that whilst toggling.

Press "Map" in either F10 or misison editor, they are there. the DMZ of the multiple ceasfire lines also there, but the Turkish "occupation" areas not recognised, not sure whats happening with that.

The above benchmark steps can be achieved with a ten year old tool FRAPS, with its Benchmark tool ticked, and FRAFS Bench Viewer, that coverts the csv to a graph instantly, both freeware, example below. Unfortunately tracks are misunderstood. Tracks will mimic a single player or server host experience which isn't the entire story. Benchmarking internally via a specific in game tool was an old thing. Back in the days of the VOODOO 2 Extreme graphics cards, when we marvelled at textures being on polygons at the same time!! Static benchmarks are not useful for CPU centric applications like DCS. The additional CPU stress is caused by AI with realtime decision making, Taxiing AI proximity checks, hundreds of units performing realtime detection checks on every sensor type they have, each. Ground units with realtime shortest path problem solving algorithms, Missiles with realtime guidance. Tracks are actually very good for reproducing exactly that noise overhead, a single plane does surprisingly little on its own. And once you deny the system CPU, your frames can be measured properly. Of course, your client doesn't do half of those things when on line, so you can throw this all out when considering offline benchmarking. Additionally, with the rendering thread now broken off, we are in a new era. Given that the difference between Caucasus Anapa and Mount Pleasant, Falklands can be measured in VR in double digits, my recommednation is that for play, you examine your worst case scenario and tune from there by feeling rather than counting the milliseconds, because the amount of variables in consideration stretches beyond any simple benchmark.

As with the fore or aft of the 3-9 line and the way it updates. There were a couple of recorrections in the notch, maybe 3 degrees of tuning. On the RWR there's a brief delay in the update of the missiles direction, here is the first, a 45 degree turn towards: null The RWR M icon disappears during the bank. It reappears once level. This would be expected, the lenses for the rwr have a cone looking out that are not covering a complete bubble around the plane. Additionally, the RWR is performing according to some secret tech with <2 degrees accuracy of azimuth tracking inside less than one second of detection and update. Clearly overtuned and working too well since the cone of the missiles radar seeker, even if its an aperture of a few degrees (Radars typically have 3 +/- 2, is still a few degrees of possible azimuth flexibility that it would be absolutely impossible for the RWR to distinguish) By anyone's argument, either the most expensive tech of the HTS pod is being outperformed by a Chinese copy to a factor of 1000x the resolution and speed (1000? really? my HTS pod cant even get <5nm after 5mins!), or in fact this is just gaming artifacts left in because no one wants to damage the meta and risk people actually being faced with getting killed by missiles because they can repeat an A>B>C process. Time to chase up ED on the RWR natural innacuracy feature methinks...