Pikey

Check for a folder that does not exist in the dedicated installation! You cannot, prior to a mission launch, use any line that asks if it is a server, those are mission and net environments. There's nothing in _G about that https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1340230/check-if-directory-exists-in-lua

Your points were already made. I've also added a constructive way to alert people there is something afoot. This stuff is NOT new.

I thought it was a lovely gesture of fun and goodwill from the team. It was very easy to tell it was deliberately done, perhaps the skeletons and the pumpkins could go on the front screen to help those that are only logging in after a while and not picking up on the date. Well executed, funny, thank you, and shows the caring side of the team. Please make sure you get them with the Reindeer, Tie Fighters on April fools and other such occasional nonsense.

Once you can send things the rest is DCS scripting and not to do with the DIscord webhook exe or how to make a webhook. So you should look for help with your scripts in the scripting section to find out what you did. Troubleshooting scripts very much requires people to read their dcs.log and look for errors.

Damn, I need this in my life!

I never saw a mirror that could be made from this that wasn't part of DCS, there's no options I see in openXR tools, how did you do it?

Although I ran OpenXR and it worked straightaway this morning, so it doesn't mean the reinstall didnt work, I haven't reproduced the issue again yet.

Thanks, had a look and there's one entry and the file exists and paths seem correct. But wondering if Data value should be 1 and not 0 for this DWORD? null

In the south atlantic map there are massive several degree swings on location, pretty much impossible without lots of effort to find it, so the posts relevance stands. SHouldnt have to have a script for it.

no, something else is wrong. It doesn't work automatically most times, i have to restart my PC.

Does anyone know why OpenXR tools for WMR most of the time launches looking like this for me: Usually I launch WMR, launch DCS and DCS never loads, just hangs. Then I open that tool and it looks like this. ALl I ever could do was reboot which usually fixes it until the next time and I got sick of this today and tried uninstalling and it still behaves like this and its not useable without huge delays an dfaffing around on my PC, which defeats what was good about the solution. What should I do? null

Just in case anyone arrives at this post asking the same thing - no you cannot edit the moment to moment AI decision making specifying the com-plex parts of viosual detection, the movement of the plane outside of general waypoints, the manner of the movement outside of general tactics set as Task "options". These things are held in DCS programme files that are not editable, in encoded C language. Things you can edit - Tasks, as per design, either by the Mission Editor or scripting, to issue moment to moment tasking options or generalised behaviour. Example - tell a plane to land. It conducts its own routine, the closest you can do is tell it when and where, the rest is not editable. Sensors, weapons, unit core behaviour by type in the editable lua files AI is naturally cognizant of the player and other AI and the amount of ways it interacts when it detects and detection itself has been tweaked over the recent years, most notably in the WW2 units, with new routines that tell AI to try to escape sometimes or make it not aware of rear blind approaches. The progress on this is slow. It's well understood it is very important. The next generation of BFM routines and code is coming at some point according to ED official news.

Wow thanks so much, truly excellent additions to DCS! Thank you for your gift!

Asking again

No tracks, no sources, no defects.

Wow thanks so much, I thought I was going mad, I spent ages since it used to be in the profile but now, I am happy to irradiate my eyes less again!!

Thought i'd share a demo of what we can do with moving battle lines.

I don't think its that, I think it's that older flight models have more inertia and quirks and feel more alive and thus immersive. I am not aware of any quantative data set that you can draw this conclusion from. Was there a poll I missed? We are entitled to opinions but shoudln't offer them as fact.

Here's the airfields listed from the official announcement without the 'and more' stretch goal airports that might be added Excellent pick for a map imo. Low population density and two seasons make sense for double High on scenery and elevation appearance Can be reused for most time periods and active in WW2 Nice straight forward East-West geography with clear borders and uncomplicated land mass for ground unit travel Great Norweigan coastline for funflights The area has a very dense serving of DCS modules that would be at home Looking forward to it.

Good job! Not sure who the localiser is for Russian language on the ED team but I hope this can get passed on to get it in the sim faster!

I have no idea about the export environment, I only tinker with the mission environment.

You called me narrow minded because i dont like what you like. That wasnt an opinion on a dcs module. You should be be accurate. The topic explains the virtues of the simpler designs where it comes to multiplayer. I believe many pick the newest modules in a bubble because they dont play online or try other aspects of the game. The danger of players picking the avionics rich aircraft is they miss how to see the broader picture and they spend all their time learning and not playing. Once you pick a Hornet or F16 you have artificially limited yourself to the best capability in a bubble and can see no reason to look further. Thus my advisory... challenge yourself with a different mindset else dcs multiplayer dies when the teen series runs out. Narrow minded.. pff.

Ah boo Not sure I can think of a way to make this more appealing to ED. My only thought is a mod that would take some of the properties of saclos launchers. Even then, pretty doubtful.

Hi @cfrag I could have explained this better but let me try again There's no implications, I am explicit and whilst I could use smaller words, I did try two different ways to say the same thing twice each, even to the point of quoting myself, now, for the third time. But I've apologised for not being clear. And I hope at least you can find it clear. I never attacked anyone else's play. I said that I find modern standoff boring and gave many reasons why. If something is boring, its always subjective, things cannot by definition be objectively boring! Because I have an opinion on the matter I was attacked and called narrow minded and then more, personally. And that was via "reading between the lines". This is an important advisory - to be open minded about all things. I qualified it by providing the advantages that older short ranged weapons provide in gameplay and I listed them out in great depth, specifically multiplayer, but there's an offline element too. I qualified it by saying that I have found people that don't engage in gameplay elements have shorter interests in the sim as they miss out on so many gameplay elements. I will not abandon a decade of multiplayer, running squadrons, taking part in events and these forums and investing heavily in the success of this software, quietly. It is the success and uptake of the multiplayer scene and diversifying on module purchases that are critical to initial purchases of players getting over the hump of 'study sim slump', anmd taking up a hobby for more years, as I have witnessed. Of course, everyone is welcome to take the advice they prefer, although; “Learn from the mistakes of others. You can't live long enough to make them all yourself.” Comes to mind. However, if someone is providing their experience, shooting them down for having one, is at best ludicrous and at worst you might call them "narrow minded"

The way I'd see these things coming is if a thrid party committed to doing something with IADS like was metnioned as then it would get commercial support and we might see more features to SAMs. I'd also like to see a "SAM Simulator" in DCS. I don't think these would garner much interest from a wider audience and there are other issues, but its still a good wishlist item.