Is there an active request to flip the logic of Hidden on MFD/Planner?

[fargo007]

Right now, the default behavior is that every unit and static on the map gets represented as a control point in the AH-64D or as a point in the Ka-50's ABRIS.  

Statics, Units, and even late-activated units.  From any coalition.

Since it's obvious that almost no mission designer would ever intend every single asset to be treated this way, has anyone requested yet to:

 

1- Add a checkbox/feature be added to the ME that would check these options at large for all assets.

2 - Alternatively, pre-check "Hidden on MFD" and "Hidden on Planner" such that they are hidden by default. 

I've searched around and haven't seen this as a request yet, but this would be huge.  I know it affects the Black Shark as well as the Apache, and likely others too. 

[Grimes]

I don't think so, but yeah that would be a good QoL feature. 

 

Would be easy enough to mod in a command to set the value. To load a default value on group creation would take some more time and unfortunately require modding a few key files in the editor that change often. Thus the mod would most likely break every patch. 

[fargo007]

Hopefully this one gets picked up!  

Edited November 15, 2022 by fargo007

[Exorcet]

It's always good to be careful when flipping a default setting, especially one that has existed for a long time. It might be better as a checkbox in the ME instead of a change to the default. Or just give the AH/KA their own checkbox. The hidden on MFD thing came about because of the F-16/18.

[fargo007]

On 11/16/2022 at 5:15 AM, Exorcet said:

It's always good to be careful when flipping a default setting, especially one that has existed for a long time. It might be better as a checkbox in the ME instead of a change to the default. Or just give the AH/KA their own checkbox. The hidden on MFD thing came about because of the F-16/18.

 

To be clear, I'm asking for either the boxes to present themselves as checked when the unit is put on the map, or to have a mission level option to apply that to all. 

It's literally filling up the TSD's memory on the Apache with every single unit and static on the map.  It can't stay this way.

[Exorcet]

1 hour ago, fargo007 said:

 

To be clear, I'm asking for either the boxes to present themselves as checked when the unit is put on the map, or to have a mission level option to apply that to all. 

It's literally filling up the TSD's memory on the Apache with every single unit and static on the map.  It can't stay this way.

I understood, the thing is just as easily as the default behavior is a problem for Apaches, it might be a good thing for other airframes. That's why changing defaults in software is something that should be considered carefully. It will solve problems for one side but could make problems for another group of users. Adding a separate option or checkbox to clear Apache data would have the least negative side effects (basically none) for other users. A toggle all option would be nice to have too, maybe with sub options to limit it to coalitions, countries, and unit types (ships, SAM's, etc).

Or perhaps this is a good time to even revamp how intelligence is presented in DCS. From the mission briefing you can tell that DCS was not built with limited intelligence in mind since it lists every single unit on the map unless hidden. And the mission planner even shows you exact routes for enemies units which you would be unlikely to know. In general we need more control over what is supposed to be known/unknown/partially known, etc.

[fargo007]

15 hours ago, Exorcet said:

I understood, the thing is just as easily as the default behavior is a problem for Apaches, it might be a good thing for other airframes. That's why changing defaults in software is something that should be considered carefully. It will solve problems for one side but could make problems for another group of users. Adding a separate option or checkbox to clear Apache data would have the least negative side effects (basically none) for other users. A toggle all option would be nice to have too, maybe with sub options to limit it to coalitions, countries, and unit types (ships, SAM's, etc).

Or perhaps this is a good time to even revamp how intelligence is presented in DCS. From the mission briefing you can tell that DCS was not built with limited intelligence in mind since it lists every single unit on the map unless hidden. And the mission planner even shows you exact routes for enemies units which you would be unlikely to know. In general we need more control over what is supposed to be known/unknown/partially known, etc.

 

This affects more than the Apache, that's just the easiest example to point out.

Which aircraft do you believe benefit from having every single blue, red, and neutral static and unit consumed into their internal systems, and would be harmed by this? I cannot think of a single case.

The "Default" we're speaking of here is this - assuming that a mission designer wants every friendly, enemy and neutral static to be automatically visible to internal systems unless those manual checkboxes are checked.

Nobody creating missions wants this. The default behavior in this case is literally the opposite of what it should be.

I trust ED to determine the best way to handle it.

[HC_Official]

+1 for this very sensible feature to be implemented

 

EDIT:

Had a quick go at this using notepad++ and it is possible to set everything to hidden on MFD in about 2 seconds using search and replace

search

["taskSelected"] = true,

replace with

["hiddenOnMFD"] = true,
                                ["taskSelected"] = true,

Tho make sure you dont have any hidden at the moment or you will get dupes

Edited November 22, 2022 by HC_Official

[fargo007]

21 minutes ago, HC_Official said:

+1 for this very sensible feature to be implemented

 

EDIT:

Had a quick go at this using notepad++ and it is possible to set everything to hidden on MFD in about 2 seconds using search and replace

search

["taskSelected"] = true,

replace with

["hiddenOnMFD"] = true,
                                ["taskSelected"] = true,

Tho make sure you dont have any hidden at the moment or you will get dupes

 

Thank you!  Is that done in the (unpacked) mission file? 

[HC_Official]

yeah u can extract out the mission file out of the miz

or if you are lazy like me

run one of these this in a dos window (depends if u have 64bit notepad++ or 32bit one) and u can click on the mission file inside the miz file and edit it  (then save)

assoc .="No Extension"
ftype "No Extension"=^"^%ProgramFiles(x86)^%\Notepad++\notepad++.exe^" "%1"

assoc .="No Extension"
ftype "No Extension"=^"^%ProgramFiles^%\Notepad++\notepad++.exe^" "%1"

 

info here

https://superuser.com/questions/13653/how-to-set-the-default-program-for-opening-files-without-an-extension-in-windows

 

Edited November 22, 2022 by HC_Official

[Exorcet]

On 11/22/2022 at 10:52 AM, fargo007 said:

 

This affects more than the Apache, that's just the easiest example to point out.

Which aircraft do you believe benefit from having every single blue, red, and neutral static and unit consumed into their internal systems, and would be harmed by this? I cannot think of a single case.

It's more that most people might be used to the default as it is, rather than the impact on a specific module. But if you want an example, currently with unit info on by default, someone placing down SAM's for a F-16/18 mission where intelligence on the enemy is strong doesn't have to mess with the checkbox at all. If the change were to go through, making a new mission would have everything hidden on the MFD's if they didn't realize that the default had changed. In this simple case a global checkbox would make things easy to fix. However you can make things less easy to fix if this was a mission in progress from one patch (with MFD hidden unchecked) to another patch (with MFD hidden checked) and the visibility of units in the mission wasn't supposed to be uniform. A global checkbox wouldn't fix things if you didn't notice the change, you'd have to manually go through the list to fix stuff.

 

But I think this is kind of going off topic a bit. I'm not against the spirit of the request. I'm just trying to make sure it's done carefully to avoid creating unforeseen problems. That's all. If I have anything to say about the idea directly, I think the most flexible option is to provide a separate checkbox for "internal aircraft data" that way hidden on MFD can be left alone.

On 11/22/2022 at 10:52 AM, fargo007 said:

Nobody creating missions wants this. The default behavior in this case is literally the opposite of what it should be.

I don't think that's true. In a training mission for example, you could very easily expect full visibility of enemy forces. Even in a real combat mission, you could be creating a follow up strike where the player is tasked with flying a mission over an area where other aircraft have already found the enemy and can relay their positions to Command and Control. In general for me, not everything on the enemy side has a known location, but at the same time that is not always the case 100% of the time.

On 11/22/2022 at 10:52 AM, fargo007 said:

I trust ED to determine the best way to handle it.

No offense to ED, but they can't do that. What's best is going to depend on what mission designers do and how they use these features, and that can vary from person to person. We absolutely should not trust that ED are mindreaders that can predict every possible drawback with a given solution. We need to actively communicate with them to help them find a solution that works in as many cases as possible.

[fargo007]

21 minutes ago, Exorcet said:

 

Quote

I don't think that's true. In a training mission for example, you could very easily expect full visibility of enemy forces. Even in a real combat mission, you could be creating a follow up strike where the player is tasked with flying a mission over an area where other aircraft have already found the enemy and can relay their positions to Command and Control. In general for me, not everything on the enemy side has a known location, but at the same time that is not always the case 100% of the time.

This is reaching to extremes in order to position a fringe, edge case as the center of gravity for mission designers. The people commenting on this here ARE mission designers and code maintainers of various projects, and are speaking in general support of what is being requested. 

If you read more carefully, every single static and unit from EVERY coalition appear this way. 

It's ABSOLUTELY TRUE that people who actually make missions do not want every friendly, neutral and enemy unit and static recorded in the internal systems of their aircraft, by DEFAULT. There is no credible use case for this.

Please, let's allow the thread to get back on track.

[Exorcet]

On 11/23/2022 at 7:15 PM, fargo007 said:

This is reaching to extremes in order to position a fringe, edge case as the center of gravity for mission designers. The people commenting on this here ARE mission designers and code maintainers of various projects, and are speaking in general support of what is being requested. 

If you read more carefully, every single static and unit from EVERY coalition appear this way. 

It's ABSOLUTELY TRUE that people who actually make missions do not want every friendly, neutral and enemy unit and static recorded in the internal systems of their aircraft, by DEFAULT. There is no credible use case for this.

Please, let's allow the thread to get back on track.

I'm not dragging anything off topic, at this point you don't really have to reply, I'm just trying to raise a concern so that we don't end up with a minor problem upon making a change. By the way, I am one of those mission designers.