Hardcard

@Jimi08 @Beardy McWhisky Hi there! Sorry guys, I'm swamped this summer, no time for games or game scripting. You can try StopGaps instead, @cfrag is actively developing it. Good luck!

@cfrag I wish you better luck and more success than I had with SWAPR This aspect of DCS is a can of worms. Will try to study your script in the future, perhaps this summer I'll have time. Congrats. @Adalla Ah, collision issues in MP... they drove me nuts when I was developing SWAPR. I experimented with different events (because some of them didn't trigger in MP), I ended up having to write a dedicated server hook, which seemed to do the trick. But even then, some people kept reporting collision issues in certain situations, never found the cause of those (but then again, I'm no scripting expert). Like I said, this aspect of DCS is a can of worms, issues keep appearing with DCS updates. ED might decide to change event IDs, some necessary scripting functions might stop working, replacements might start spawning incorrectly (suspended in the air instead of touching the ground, etc.). I hope @cfrag is able to deal with the worms that keep crawling out of this can

@Flappie Hi there! I'll be busy for the remainder of spring and probably well into summer, but if the script gives you trouble or you'd like it to have extra features, I can make some time and take a look. If your previous Caucasus map is any indication, this will be an awesome map too!

@SharpeXB Again, you seem to think that you're in a position to tell other people what's best for them... stop it. I'm already sifting through 30+GB of unwanted liveries every time there's an update, it's time consuming and absurd, which is why I started this thread and would very much like to see some sort of livery manager in DCS... or at least have the option to choose which liveries I want to download and install. I wouldn't have a problem with liveries if they didn't take up so much space, but they do (tomcat, apache, mirage f1 and mig21 are among the worst offenders), if there's something in DCS that should be optional, it's liveries. If you want to download and install all liveries, just select them all and you're done, you won't be forced to waste your time, so there won't be any problem for you. But don't force other people to do the same, I don't want to waste 30+GB (and counting) of SSD space in unwanted liveries, that's a problem for some of us and would like to see a solution. You let me worry about what's the best way for me to classify and choose my liveries, thanks.

@SharpeXB Tidy list of all aircraft, each with its own checkbox and expandable sublist of liveries, no chaos, all very intuitive, just like a customizable installer. If you want it prettier and more practical, then some sort of livery manager would be a better option, something along the lines of @Exorcet's proposal. If you want the cherry on top, then it could also have a livery preview window, just like in mission editor. If you want all liveries, then click on "select all ", done, nothing confusing about it. Anyway, you've already stated several times that getting all liveries is the only option that makes sense (to you, that is). Therefore, you won't be choosing your liveries. So I'm wondering why you kept posting, telling the rest of people (the ones who, unlike you, are actually interested in choosing their liveries) what's best for them. As if it were any of your business, as if it were up to you to decide what makes sense for other people, what's "madness", " what's "too time consuming", etc. Being forced to download 30+GB of unwanted liveries (only to have to delete them afterwards) every time there's an update... that's what I call "time consuming", "madness", "absurdity", etc. and it definitely makes no sense.

Today's update has been the last straw for me, I'm sick and tired of being forced to download and install 30+GB of liveries that I don't want, many of them are for aircraft I don't own and will never see, since I don't play WW2 or Cold War scenarios. The situation gets worse as time passes, as more modules and liveries are added to DCS. So I'm starting this thread and poll, to see if I'm alone in thinking that DCS aircraft liveries should be made optional.

LS-6-250 / LS-6-100 can't be loaded on inner pylons, yet LS-6-500 can. This looks like an oversight, not a pylon limitation. No track needed on this one, I guess.

I'd be less inclined to do so, since HB also had "the data" before and turned out to be false (by HB's own admission). Here's hoping that they'll find their current data to be false in the near future and phoenixes will be tweaked again, but in a positive way.

Who expects 100nmi hits at medium / low altitude? Afaik, the main issues are that phoenixes perhaps struggle to accelerate too much and perhaps lose steam too soon. It would be nice to get a list of sources that HB devs consider to be valid, since there are publicly available documents stating stuff that is being denied here (max speed, for instance). The phoenix whitepaper says that burn length should be 27 seconds for the mk47 and 30 seconds for the mk60: http://media.heatblur.se/AIM-54.pdf (page 4) This seems to be consistent with, at least, one of its source documents (approved for public release, unlimited distribution): https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA142508.pdf (page 14) However, that's not what we see in DCS, mk60, for instance, has a burn time of only 21 seconds. @IronMike @Naquaii What am I missing here?

I'm sure that's the reason... it can't possibly be that the phoenix met the requirements to be classified as long range missile and thus people expect better than a medium range missile... Nah, that can't be it

@Maple Hi there, I think this issue is caused by DCS code which is meant to handle base spawns and the like. I don't think I can do anything about it, besides, my plate is full atm, sorry. @Rudel_chw Hi there! We actually sold our flat and moved to a house, no vacation for me this summer, lots of work done and still plenty more to do, it keeps piling up! I'm just checking in for a bit before going to bed, we just got our new internet connection installed... I haven't touched the computer in a month. I can scarcely believe that we've managed to get a fiber connection out here... and here's the kicker: I get lower latency than I did in the city . Won't be able to enjoy a proper DCS multiplayer session or work on scripts until autumn or winter, I'm afraid, there's simply too much stuff to do. Hope everything is going well!

@FusRoPotato Sorry for the late reply. I'm in the process of moving to a new home, too much stuff on my plate this summer, it's looking like I'll have no time to spare for DCS stuff, sorry. PS: Also, I'll lose this fiber connection tomorrow, just logged in to say my farewell to the forum

@Blinx 21 Aside from what @cfrag mentioned, it might very well be that there's no way to make the static replacement spawn exactly where you left your aircraft (also, it might be removed after a while). DCS has an obscure airbase cleanup routine which removes and relocates client and AI aircraft... it shouldn't affect static replacements, but Murphy's law tends to apply In any case, you'll definitely need a script to do this, there's no way of doing it in Mission Editor. I can give you pointers on how to script this, if you're interested in learning basic Lua and DCS Lua. Regarding MOOSE, think of it as a pre-cooked meal, it makes DCS scripting quicker and easier, but it's not required, you can write your scripts in DCS Lua (which is what MOOSE does under the hood)

@Rudel_chw Hi there, hope everything is well. @Blinx 21 SWAPR isn't what you're looking for, since it'll remove your aircraft when you change slots. However, the feature you're requesting (or at least something similar) should be doable with a script. You won't be able to keep your planes spawned after you switch slots, but you should be able to spawn "clones" at the approximate location / airbase you left them. Do you have scripting experience in DCS?

@Flappie I guess I should've recorded it. Here's what happens: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1c3k6tZ9JZkLlMihES3kLttyXgaBgyK0M/view?usp=sharing 1- Open the track posted by @ripper253 2- Go to F10 view once the mission has been loaded 3- Unpause the mission 4- Zoom in You can see in my video how the interface breaks, map markers disappear, toolbar icons disappear. Then, when I exit the replay, you can see how interface buttons and sliders also disappear, module thumbnails in the main menu disappear, Mission Editor buttons disappear, etc. The bug effects are the same we had before, and something in this track triggers it. My main suspects: - Map drawing elements introduced in 2.7 (or some of their settings), which appear when you zoom in. - Map icons/markers introduced in 2.7, which appear when you zoom in. Why is this only happening in BF Syria 90s? I don't know, maybe it's the only mission currently using the problematic markers / drawings.

@Flappie I can confirm that the track posted above breaks the UI of F10 map, DCS buttons/UI elements outside the mission, etc. for me... all I have to do is unpause it, my DCS gets rekt.

I should've kept my mouth shut, shouldn't I? @DD_Fenrir Methinks you should've read previous posts and checked the viper loadouts that are currently allowed before making that comment. If you had, you would've realized that we're allowed to carry 10x cbus, or 6x cbus and 6x mavericks, which seem kind of "Ace Combaty" to me. @Frederf My thoughts exactly when I was taking those screenshots. @Bunny Clark @Falconeer Thanks, I appreciate your replies. But, tbh, some of the currently allowed loadouts totally make the viper look like an A-10.

The most recent example happened this morning. I was flying an F-14A, AI mirage was forced to drop lock to defend my phoenix (which found its mark anyway)... then, some seconds after the mirage was destroyed, I got hit by its 530D without any warning. My jammer was on in this case, but I seem to recall that this kind of thing has also happened to me when flying the viper (I never carry ECM pod in the viper). I did save the track of the tomcat engagement, but, unsurprisingly, it's corrupted... @kotor633 I don't own the mirage, so I have no manual, only the Chuck's guide.

@Flappie A blueflag player on the BuddySpike discord channel says that the issue also happens in other servers, not just Syria 90s. I've already asked that player to try to reproduce the issue elsewhere and then report it to you here. I'll just say that this UI issue was never server-related, I don't see why it should be server-related now.

@Kercheiz This has happened to me when flying different jets, with and without an active jammer. Also, are these missiles supposed to reacquire after radar contact has been regained? EDIT: Ok, I've managed to find a thread related to this from last year (Google searches and ED forum threads don't go along) Looks like Super 530s are closer to fox3s than I thought.

I've been noticing this for a while, when training against AI mirages. Super 530s sometimes still hit me after the AI mirages have either turned beyond gimbal limits or died to my missiles. Also, super 530s sometimes don't give RWR warning when this happens. Should I report this here or on the DCS missile section?

@Flappie I'll try to reach Xcom and the admins on Discord, but, before I do, are we sure it isn't a DCS issue? Are we sure it isn't related to the Syria map?

@Bunny Clark @Falconeer So... gbu-12s fall like any other unguided bomb AND do weird things? What about cbu canisters and dumb bombs with only tail fins? Don't they do weird things in disturbed flows too? Also, if gbu-12s are so dangerous, why are we allowed to carry one on each inner pylon? Seems to me that carrying one is just as dangerous as carrying 2, if this is really the case. Regarding the country-specific loadout books, I'm guessing they're classified, right? Anyway, I just want a couple of extra bombs, to hit whatever my JSOW-As and cbu clusters fail to kill. Also, I could use more than 4x gbu-38s in the viper...

Are you sure you didn't get this backwards? I'd say that gbu-12s are more stable and easier to steer, precisely because they have that extra set of control fins on the nose. I'd expect cbu canisters and mk82s to wobble around a lot more than gbu-12s. Regarding the practicality of multiple gbu-12s on the inner pylons, like I said, that's a separate matter, I'm only concerned about physical reasons.

@Bunny Clark Did you check available armament options for the viper in ME? Notice that, just like gbu-12s, cbu87/97 are also limited to 2 on pylons 3 & 7... yet 3 of them are allowed on the inner pylons (4 & 6), whereas only 1x gbu-12 is allowed. Makes no sense, no matter how you slice it. Here, check these out: Regarding aerodynamic concerns upon release, if those massive cbu canisters don't cause problems, why should gbu-12s? Hell, even 3x dumb mk82s are allowed on the inner pylons, if those don't cause problems, why should gbu-12s? Also, if gbu-12s are so dangerous, why are they so popular? Like you said, extensive testing is performed before clearing these weapons for employment, I would be very surprised if gbu-12s hadn't been thoroughly tested and modified to ensure safe release. Now, whether the USAF adopted that kind of loadout for the inner pylons, that's another matter, I'm talking about physical reasons here... and I see none that would prevent, at least, 2x gbu-12 to be mounted on the inner pylons.