Poulet67

Wow that is a lot of text. Sure, everyone has an "ideal vision" of how DCS should look at the finish line, but there is also reality. Reality is, even the best programmers in the world can't just will software into existence and DCS will never be 'at the finish line'. It takes a LOT of work. Like weeks and months sometimes to do things that on their own are not at all impressive. You seem mostly concerned about people using 3rd party voice chat for "cheating" or being concerned that it doesn't simulate real life conditions (that is way too much text to read so I kind of had to infer the bulk of the content): In multiplayer the server admins choose how they want their servers to run... They can mod it out the wazoo or run DCS vanilla. The player base will flock to whichever server they like the best. That is just the way it is, unless DCS drastically changes their multiplayer system (and I pray they don't, or at least leave our server based implementation alone as separate mode of multiplayer). So if you as a player think SRS doesn't accurately simulate line of sight or power decay effects due to radio wave propagation you are free to find a server running a VoIP package that does, or make your own. I really don't see the issue here. If ED does somehow manage to complete 5 years of development goals in 1 and by the end of next year they have the most sophisticated "radio communication simulation on top of VOIP ever seen", along with OverlordBot, CSAR integration and all other features that players enjoy and server admins require that they get with SRS, the player base will naturally gravitate towards them, as they should. I will also eat my socks if that happens. Instead of this, they could spend the developer hours on: -Fixing the many many bugs that are still outstanding -Upgrading the game engine so it can use more than 1 core (vulkan or otherwise) -Add more calls to the scripting API so modders can make even more brilliant things that players enjoy -Improve the base game (dynamic campaign anyone?) -Improve the AI -Finish supercarrier -Work on a popular module -Improve some of the ungodly bad training missions -Add training missions to modules that don't have them -Work on the "one map" thing they seem to want to do ...and so on and so forth. It seems to me to be really silly to commit yourself to work on something that there is already a solution for, just so you can say it is yours now. At least while there are still so many other valuable (and pressing! - 4 year old carrier TACAN bug anyone?!) things to do.

Agree, please don't shut out modders

I support this. Eagle Dynamics: We need better scripting API support, across the board.

I second this request, however be advised this has been a wished for request probably since multi-player was ever a thing.

I developed a lua script to try and implement this functionality, however I haven't touched it in several months and find it hard to find motivation if ED is just going to (someday) implement the functionality anyway. I will share the link with you if you wish the see it... It is not well documented and I would probably have to guide you through the setup as I never really got it past the proof of concept stage. However even with that consideration, one can never hope to restrict (or even account for) things like targeting pods and and fuel tanks. See my post in this forum for more info. I suspect if they fixed this aspect of the API, community developers (perhaps such as myself) could/would actually develop some scripting to make such a thing possible. Last I checked, MOOSE had a warehousing functionality, but it was limited in what it could really do. Best of luck

It has almost been a year now... The new grpc server has exciting possibilities. Unfortunately this still prevents some basic level equipment/asset management from being available. Is there any chance this would get some attention?

Anyone out there checked Marianas? Post anything you find here I guess

Been experiencing this as well

I was fairly certain all modules (should, at least) have their tooltips for different switch positions like so: TOP/BOTTOM LEFT/MIDDLE/RIGHT At least almost every module I have used seems to follow this convention. This seems to be reversed on many switches throughout the Hind, most notably on the engine start panel.

Yeah, after a few attack runs he stopped giving me target lists all together. The sight would show up in my HUD pointing where I was telling him to search though. I may have outmaneuvered the gimbal (kept forgetting I have to micro manage that from the pilot seat too...) so I think it may just be an unresponsive implementation of that. I will test more later.

I almost wonder if this has something to do with combined arms, all the control bindings from that module are inconsistent with how aircraft are done and this sight looks like it may have been ripped from that code base.

I noticed this as well, it seems to bug out and flip back into the cockpit as well (probably due to this weird coupling)

Was having a hard time using the missile sight until I realized it was bound to my controller, stick pedals , HOTAS slew and mouse all at the same time. Even though I have nothing bound to "Aiming Station Left/Right" or "Aiming Station Up/Down" in my axis binds.

Same thing I said in the other thread specifically about electrical issues: The electrical system (shutdown/ power up) in the operator cockpit appears to me to be triggered by collective position instead of rotor RPM. At least after start up.

Just try it, when I was flying it was constantly conking out every time the pilot reduced the collective.

I am fairly certain the problem is very simple: The electrical system for the operator seat is looking at cyclic position instead of RPM and triggering a shutdown/power up based on that.

Good to know there is a fix, would still be nice to not have to do this every time.

Curious if this still works now with the added "start from ground" options for player aircraft?

Hi Eagle Dynamics, Bug 1: ----------------------- The new ground unit pathfinding, and ability to drive through bushes has been a very welcome addition to the game! Thank you for that. I wanted to give this new pathfinding the ultimate test (see image). It performed fairly admirably, but in the end got stuck on this rubble pile object. I would strongly recommend you make these passable like you did with bushes. Or give them the same collision properties as buildings and the like so the AI knows to avoid them. Bug 2: ---------------------- Not sure if this is really a bug or feature request, I think you will need to implement this anyways at some point. Probably better to get it on your radars now. The new ability to spawn players into an aircraft at any point on the ground (again another very welcome addition) seems to only point the aircraft in 1 direction (heading 000). Creating a second waypoint does not affect the heading (Like it does for air starts). Would be really nice (especially if operating in confined areas like ad-hoc highway FARPS) to have them start pointing in a certain direction. Here is an imgur link to the pictures showing what I mean: https://imgur.com/a/ov06zkh

Dear Eagle Dynamics, There is currently no way to determine if an aircraft has: -A targeting pod -Fuel tanks (we can sort of figure this out from fuel state, but it is not optimal) -Gun pods -ECM pods -Some other types not listed By using the the scripting engine. I can see a few possible solutions: - Include these items in a getAmmo() call - Include these items in a getSensors() call - Create a new function call for these specific objects, call it getPods() - Create a new function call that dumps all objects on all pylons. - Give scripters some way to get the current weight/mass of the aircraft, this way at least we could do some math and determine what is equipped (this information is also not available through the scripting engine and probably should be... for this problem though, it is my least favorite solution). We have seen ammo points scripts being adopted to discourage silly "unrealistic" load outs in more serious PvE servers. Many in the community have enjoyed that capability. Some folks would like to see a less "equip whatever you want" type environment in favor of assigned load outs for particular mission types. There are a TON of possible use cases and applications for this, and in general the more access we have to information in the simulation environment the more ability we have to make engaging missions. This benefits you as well, as new players and potential customers tend to stick around (and buy modules) when there are fun and challenging scenarios freely available such as they are in multiplayer. Thanks for reading this, I very much hope you will implement this request. Yours sincerely, A DCS customer

Agree 100% - overlord bot is amazing, and interactive voice controlled ATC is also amazing. I think ED should give this guy whatever he needs. He keeps adding value to this game for free.