remove unofficial mods Since latest patch, all armed ground vehicles are missing in all missions, including ME and single player.

[rob10]

27 minutes ago, plott1964 said:

So far I have determined the VSN F-4 and the A-4E Community mod are causing the issue. I'm sorry, but this is unacceptable!

That's unacceptable how??????  You added extra unsanctioned, untested by ED mods to your build and you're holding ED responsible?  No way that ED is going to try and test all (or any, since that would set an expectation they were going to it for all) mods.  If it's unacceptable you should be screaming at the developers (who for free mind you) provide you with mod and didn't jump on this immediately yesterday to check and fix them (cause, you know, you paid big money for the mods -- oh wait - see the earlier part of this sentence).

[Raven434th]

I can confirm the su-30 mod is causing this issue...not the A-4...FYI ...tried to play a mission with su-30 mod installed...no ground units spawned...took it out ....ground units spawned....put the su-30 back in....no ground units...A-4 was installed throughout this test.

[plott1964]

5 hours ago, rob10 said:

That's unacceptable how??????  You added extra unsanctioned, untested by ED mods to your build and you're holding ED responsible?  No way that ED is going to try and test all (or any, since that would set an expectation they were going to it for all) mods.  If it's unacceptable you should be screaming at the developers (who for free mind you) provide you with mod and didn't jump on this immediately yesterday to check and fix them (cause, you know, you paid big money for the mods -- oh wait - see the earlier part of this sentence).

Not screaming at anyone. Never said ED was responsible. Just that it is unacceptable. Although ED did make some changes. LOL. That's an argument for another topic.

4 hours ago, Raven434th said:

I can confirm the su-30 mod is causing this issue...not the A-4...FYI ...tried to play a mission with su-30 mod installed...no ground units spawned...took it out ....ground units spawned....put the su-30 back in....no ground units...A-4 was installed throughout this test.

Well, I don't have the SU-30 installed and I can't launch the A-4 from a carrier because when I jump in it, the carrier is not there and I fall straight into the water. So...

[sean laser]

I found a quick work around to this "bug", so that you can still fly the mission without part of customized weapons before mod owner publish formal fix or update .

For those mod impacted, please open the entry.lua, comment out weapon.lua call out line and save.

For example, SU-57, you many want to comment out this line with --

dofile(current_mod_path.."/Scripts/Weapons.lua")--Calling Weapon Types

Since not all customized weapons are the cause, I just give out some clues for those who want "quick solution". If I narrow down further, may get back and let you know.

So far, with this work around , I managed to revive several mods I have such as :

Su-57

follow up: further debug shows the root cause is in Weapons.lua  in Kh_59MK2 definition. Just comment out it with --[[]] will make Su-57 back. Note: my installed mod version is 4.3 may different from yours.  If you are using the same version as I do , you can download the attached file Weapons.lua to replace.

Su-30

follow up: further debug shows the root cause is in Weapons_AA.lua in function __counter_wpn(). Comment out it(first 5 lines) and replace all "__counter_wpn()" with "WSTYPE_PLACEHOLDER" Weapons_AS.lua in KH_38MAE and RudraM1 .

For those already downloaded my Weapons_AA.lua, please restore the Mod default , and then download Weapons_AS.lua replace. This will give back the most AS weapons.

Note: my installed version is EFM V2.7.98b with CWS 3.6.4. If you are using the same version as I do , you can download the attached file Weapons_AS.lua to replace.

J-16A 

follow up: further debug shows the root cause is in Weapons.lua  in YJ-91 definition. Just comment out it with --[[]]

Weapons.lua

Weapons_AS.lua

Edited March 24 by sean laser
updated Su-30 follow up

[PeeJott17]

9 hours ago, rob10 said:

That's unacceptable how??????  You added extra unsanctioned, untested by ED mods to your build and you're holding ED responsible?  No way that ED is going to try and test all (or any, since that would set an expectation they were going to it for all) mods.  If it's unacceptable you should be screaming at the developers (who for free mind you) provide you with mod and didn't jump on this immediately yesterday to check and fix them (cause, you know, you paid big money for the mods -- oh wait - see the earlier part of this sentence).

Yes, it is!
ED is responsible for making their code not more fragile, but less fragile. How is it possible that every other new patch from ED is more and more unstable? Now it is custom weapons that are causing a crash, that was not there the previous versions. That is not good coding in my eyes. If you take a look at the log-files, it is ED's and 3rd-Party modules that throw one heck of a lot errors. That should be fixed. And always saying: It is the mod makers fault that they did not take a look in their crystal-bowl (yes, every mod-maker has one of those ready and at their disposal) and antricipate in advance what ED will do next and what they might feel like they would like to change and break in the process, is a pretty easy way of life. Sure thing, the mod makers spent money, time and energy for the comunity to bring assets for them for free, and it is their fault of doing so. Yep, that is 100% correct. They are on fault of doing that. May be the mod makers should spent their time rather on other stuff? May be building windsurf-boards or skis or whatever? There the "custom builder" can be sure that nobody is just going to make their freshly build windsurfing-bord or pair of skies unusable...

But wait: If that were the case we would not have:
- SRS
- Tacview

- BriefingRoom
- WebMissionEditor
- and on and on and on...

Yes, it would be a better world for DCS users if just all mods would vanish instantly!

P.S.: Sorry @rob10 for taking your post to heart and venting on it. I could have taken a lot of other ones that go in the same direction. Yours wasn't that bad at all, but I'm pissed since yesterday that ED, once again, made the modding comunity the present of having to do extra work to make something, that worked all along, work again...

 

And there was, a year ago, a problem which looks to be similiar to this one:

 

[landstorm]

i was building a mission and notice that any new groung vehicle that i have placed dosen't load when the mission start !!

thought i might need to do DCS repair !!

 

[MAXsenna]

4 hours ago, plott1964 said:

Just that it is unacceptable.

Still, what is? And you bolded the text, and it got me curious. Unofficial mods break themselves and break the game all the time, because the core changes. 

4 hours ago, plott1964 said:

Although ED did make some changes. LOL. That's an argument for another topic.

Fair enough, let's just don't. Unofficial mods are not supported for a reason. 

4 hours ago, plott1964 said:

Well, I don't have the SU-30 installed and I can't launch the A-4 from a carrier because when I jump in it, the carrier is not there and I fall straight into the water. So...

It comes with airfield missions. While like others have mentioned, it's not the culprit. Did you try to rename your Saved Games folder just to make 100% sure you uninstalled all mods from Saved Games?
Personally I use a mod manager even for Saved Games mods.
Cheers!

Edited March 21 by MAXsenna
Formatting

[MAXsenna]

56 minutes ago, PeeJott17 said:

Now it is custom weapons that are causing a crash, that was not there the previous versions. That is not good coding in my eyes.

Are you suggesting that ED vet their code against all mods? What about abandoned mods? 

We'd never have any updates then. Would that make you happy? I'm not sure if DCS were made for modding from the start. I guess not. If it was I might agree with you to some degree, but as of now mods aren't even supported. Pro mod makers know this and never complain.

F*** complaints in the red cespool! 

56 minutes ago, PeeJott17 said:

- SRS
- Tacview

Do you experience a lot of issues with these? Guess not. Why? These are applications that tie into the system in a different way, and rarely rely on existing code that might change.

56 minutes ago, PeeJott17 said:

I'm pissed since yesterday that ED, once again, made the modding comunity the present of having to do extra work to make something, that worked all along, work again...

Did you read the changelog at all? Did you see how many weapon fixes they made? Do the math. 

56 minutes ago, PeeJott17 said:

Now it is custom weapons that are causing a crash

Pretty sure this mod depends on existing code that was FIXED! An yet you complain. I'll wager the majority of DCS users are fully unaware of mods in general and welcome the official fixes and updates.

Start using a mod manager for your mods AND even your Saved Games mods, so whenever there's a crash after an update you can easily fix it while you wait for the mod creator to fix their mod.

I know you're just venting, and I do understand why, but in my opinion you're off the mark and these posts don't help the community at all!

Cheers! 

[DD_Friar]

Over at the DangerDogz we are having the same issue of missions having ground units stripped out of them.

We do not use any of the Su mods.

Our "whitelist" was the A4, bronco, T45 and Herc. We did not have any missions that required any other mod.

 

[MAXsenna]

Over at the DangerDogz we are having the same issue of missions having ground units stripped out of them.
We do not use any of the Su mods.
Our "whitelist" was the A4, bronco, T45 and Herc. We did not have any missions that required any other mod.
 

The issue ain't whether they're used in a mission or not. The conflicting mod must be uninstalled to not trigger "the bug". I'm betting quite a few people have mods installed they have forgotten about, because a repair only cleans the core installation folders. A mod can still be leftover in Saved Games.

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

[Rudel_chw]

1 hour ago, MAXsenna said:

I'm not sure if DCS were made for modding from the start. I guess not.

Actually, ED did try to accommodate User Mods, back on DCS v1.5 (I think) they introduced the /Saved Games/Mods/ folder structure that mimicked the one DCS used for its program files, so that Mod Makers could stop adding files within the DCS program itself, vastly reducing the amount of problems when using Mods.

[MAXsenna]

Actually, ED did try to accommodate User Mods, back on DCS v1.5 (I think) they introduced the /Saved Games/Mods/ folder structure that mimicked the one DCS used for its program files, so that Mod Makers could stop adding files within the DCS program itself, vastly reducing the amount of problems when using Mods.

Ah, thanks! I wondered about that.

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

[PeeJott17]

2 hours ago, Rudel_chw said:

Actually, ED did try to accommodate User Mods, back on DCS v1.5 (I think) they introduced the /Saved Games/Mods/ folder structure that mimicked the one DCS used for its program files, so that Mod Makers could stop adding files within the DCS program itself, vastly reducing the amount of problems when using Mods.

The thing that makes me, well, ironically, more sad than mad is, that ED seems to have stopped to care about any mods and in the process the mod-maker-comunity as well. If you compare the list of flyable aircrafts (modules and 3rd-party modules) from 1.5.x to now I guess that will make it clear, that mods are not "needed" any more or something like that.

I still don't really understand why ED does not appreciate the work, money, time and passion the modding comunity invests into their product. It is, after all, completely for free and enhances the experience for those who seek that enhancement. Normally you would think such a thing is appreciated and there is at least some form of information to what changes are coming and whether they might or definitely will infl+uence mods.

The modders could (then) figure a work-around on their own, as soon as it is known, what has changed to what extent. If you just get an error or a ctd even with a long-log you might not get an idea what the real problem is. So you start the ever so cool trial-and-error process, where if you knew about the changes, that would not be neccessary. You would apply the changes where they are needed and everybody is a happy bunny...but I guess that is way to easy...

[BIGNEWY]

3 minutes ago, PeeJott17 said:

The thing that makes me, well, ironically, more sad than mad is, that ED seems to have stopped to care about any mods and in the process the mod-maker-comunity as well. If you compare the list of flyable aircrafts (modules and 3rd-party modules) from 1.5.x to now I guess that will make it clear, that mods are not "needed" any more or something like that.

I still don't really understand why ED does not appreciate the work, money, time and passion the modding comunity invests into their product. It is, after all, completely for free and enhances the experience for those who seek that enhancement. Normally you would think such a thing is appreciated and there is at least some form of information to what changes are coming and whether they might or definitely will infl+uence mods.

The modders could (then) figure a work-around on their own, as soon as it is known, what has changed to what extent. If you just get an error or a ctd even with a long-log you might not get an idea what the real problem is. So you start the ever so cool trial-and-error process, where if you knew about the changes, that would not be neccessary. You would apply the changes where they are needed and everybody is a happy bunny...but I guess that is way to easy...

I am sorry you feel that way, but we do not have the time or resources to check for issues with unofficial mods. 

However we should have added the changes that seem to have affected the mods in the change log. But again we did not know it would affect the mods in this way. I am chatting with some mod creators and feeding back to the team about this. 

thank you 

[Rudel_chw]

1 minute ago, PeeJott17 said:

...  ED seems to have stopped to care about any mods and in the process the mod-maker-comunity as well.

 

That's just your read on the subject, to me the inclusion of a large part of the Massun's Assets Pack into the base game tells otherwise.

 

1 minute ago, PeeJott17 said:

If you compare the list of flyable aircrafts (modules and 3rd-party modules) from 1.5.x to now I guess that will make it clear, that mods are not "needed" any more or something like that.

 

Seems you are focusing mostly on flyable  aircraft Mods, but actually the variety is much larger: weather Mods, AI units, scenery objects, naval units, etc.

 

1 minute ago, PeeJott17 said:

I still don't really understand why ED does not appreciate the work, money, time and passion the modding comunity invests into their product.

 

Wonder how do you know what ED appreciates and what not.

 

1 minute ago, PeeJott17 said:

... there is at least some form of information to what changes are coming and whether they might or definitely will infl+uence mods.

 

ED does inform about upcoming changes, but the level of detail needed to ascertain if a User Mod will be affected or not, is understandably not there.

 

1 minute ago, PeeJott17 said:

The modders could (then) figure a work-around on their own, as soon as it is known, what has changed to what extent. If you just get an error or a ctd even with a long-log you might not get an idea what the real problem is. So you start the ever so cool trial-and-error process, where if you knew about the changes, that would not be neccessary. You would apply the changes where they are needed and everybody is a happy bunny...but I guess that is way to easy...

 

Modders create workarounds, but only after the new version of DCS is in our hands ... do you really believe that ED would share a developer's version for the Modders Community? That is simply not realistic and I know of no game that does that.

 

On my case, what I would like is for ED to not overdo their Intellectual Property protection, the extent they reached with the recent F-5E update is much more upsetting than any DCS update breaking some Mods, as it has made creating liveries for that aircraft practically impossible, which to me is a slap in the face for all the artists that donate their liveries to the Community. From now on I will refuse to purchase any new aircraft that does not allow for livery creation, and if that means I can no longer pre-purchase anything then so be it.

 

Eduardo

[BIGNEWY]

10 minutes ago, Rudel_chw said:

That's just your read on the subject, to me the inclusion of a large part of the Massun's Assets Pack into the base game tells otherwise.

Correct, and we have also added work by Currenthill recently. 

 

[plott1964]

6 hours ago, PeeJott17 said:

Yes, it is!
ED is responsible for making their code not more fragile, but less fragile. How is it possible that every other new patch from ED is more and more unstable? Now it is custom weapons that are causing a crash, that was not there the previous versions. That is not good coding in my eyes. If you take a look at the log-files, it is ED's and 3rd-Party modules that throw one heck of a lot errors. That should be fixed. And always saying: It is the mod makers fault that they did not take a look in their crystal-bowl (yes, every mod-maker has one of those ready and at their disposal) and antricipate in advance what ED will do next and what they might feel like they would like to change and break in the process, is a pretty easy way of life. Sure thing, the mod makers spent money, time and energy for the comunity to bring assets for them for free, and it is their fault of doing so. Yep, that is 100% correct. They are on fault of doing that. May be the mod makers should spent their time rather on other stuff? May be building windsurf-boards or skis or whatever? There the "custom builder" can be sure that nobody is just going to make their freshly build windsurfing-bord or pair of skies unusable...

But wait: If that were the case we would not have:
- SRS
- Tacview

- BriefingRoom
- WebMissionEditor
- and on and on and on...

Yes, it would be a better world for DCS users if just all mods would vanish instantly!

P.S.: Sorry @rob10 for taking your post to heart and venting on it. I could have taken a lot of other ones that go in the same direction. Yours wasn't that bad at all, but I'm pissed since yesterday that ED, once again, made the modding comunity the present of having to do extra work to make something, that worked all along, work again...

 

And there was, a year ago, a problem which looks to be similiar to this one:

 

Well said. All of it!

Where can I get one of those Crystal Balls?

Edited March 21 by plott1964

[MAXsenna]

47 minutes ago, PeeJott17 said:

I still don't really understand why ED does not appreciate the work, money, time and passion the modding comunity invests into their product. It is, after all, completely for free and enhances the experience for those who seek that enhancement. Normally you would think such a thing is appreciated and there is at least some form of information to what changes are coming and whether they might or definitely will infl+uence mods.

Of course they do! But like I wrote in my previous post, which you seem to have ignored. Do you really believe ED should spend resources on testing all mods? And like it is stated above, several mods have been added to the core. I mean, that's full support. 

34 minutes ago, Rudel_chw said:

do you really believe that ED would share a developer's version for the Modders Community? That is simply not realistic and I know of no game that does that.

To be fair, I don't think that's what he meant. 

@PeeJott17 Would you accept a compromise, if possible? We have the Closed Beta Team, which have access to updates before they're shipped to us. What about a Closed Modders Team. Where modders have access to the core came without modules, so they can test their mods and update them accordingly. If you think that's a good idea, or have something better/else in mind, you definitely should add a wish in the Wishlist section. I bet that would be well received! 

Cheers! 

[Rudel_chw]

51 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

Correct, and we have also added work by Currenthill recently. 

 

really? didnt knew that, can you expand on it a bit please? 

[plott1964]

53 minutes ago, MAXsenna said:

Of course they do! But like I wrote in my previous post, which you seem to have ignored. Do you really believe ED should spend resources on testing all mods? And like it is stated above, several mods have been added to the core. I mean, that's full support. 

To be fair, I don't think that's what he meant. 

@PeeJott17 Would you accept a compromise, if possible? We have the Closed Beta Team, which have access to updates before they're shipped to us. What about a Closed Modders Team. Where modders have access to the core came without modules, so they can test their mods and update them accordingly. If you think that's a good idea, or have something better/else in mind, you definitely should add a wish in the Wishlist section. I bet that would be well received! 

Cheers! 

That is what I've said in the past. I would think that modders like PeeJott, Tobi, EightBall and the others could be vetted by ED and allowed in the Closed Beta Modders team to "so they can test their mods and update them accordingly." Exactly! That is precisely what I meant by "unacceptable." Like all of you, I have literally spent hundreds of dollars on ED products and still 60% of my fly time is dedicated to unofficial mods by PeeJott, Tobi, EightBall and the "community" because the are awesome mods that are fun to fly.

You would think that ED would want to honor those guys' contributions by at least allowing them to be involved at a level higher than the general user and test out a beta version prior to an update like this.

Edited March 21 by plott1964

[plott1964]

@sean laser thanks for staying out of the arguments and posting helpful solutions!

[plott1964]

5 hours ago, MAXsenna said:

Still, what is? And you bolded the text, and it got me curious. Unofficial mods break themselves and break the game all the time, because the core changes. 

Fair enough, let's just don't. Unofficial mods are not supported for a reason. 

It comes with airfield missions. While like others have mentioned, it's not the culprit. Did you try to rename your Saved Games folder just to make 100% sure you uninstalled all mods from Saved Games?
Personally I use a mod manager even for Saved Games mods.
Cheers!

No. I just reverted back to the previous version until I or the modders can get my favorites to work again. I should have waited a week or so like I always do prior to updating. Doing so helps me have fewer headaches.

Mind you, the A-4 has worked pretty much flawlessly for over 2 years. Pretty sure the same is true of the VSN F-4 (even with people complaining about it).

[MAXsenna]

3 minutes ago, plott1964 said:

No. I just reverted back to the previous version until I or the modders can get my favorites to work again.

I see.

3 minutes ago, plott1964 said:

I should have waited a week or so like I always do prior to updating. Doing so helps me have fewer headaches.

Smart move.  

4 minutes ago, plott1964 said:

Mind you, the A-4 has worked pretty much flawlessly for over 2 years.

Yup, going on six years for me now. 

 

[plott1964]

"Yup, going on six years for me now." interesting - right?

[MAXsenna]

"Yup, going on six years for me now." interesting - right?

Not really. A bunch of dedicated smart knowledgeable people, doing a proper community module, even published the source code. No wonder it doesn't break "as often" compared to other mods even if ED has never been involved.
And yet people blame ED for breaking unofficial mods and/or get blamed for mods breaking DCS. Funny world.
Apologies, I just disagree heavily with you guys for blaming ED.

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk