Jump to content

S D

Members
  • Posts

    429
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by S D

  1. Sounds good to me, shall keep an eye on this, definitely more up my street.
  2. Welcome to DCS multiplayer, its an improvement, previously barrage balloons didn't even show in game for clients.
  3. This, this and more this... PLEASE people, understand. It's not bashing ED for the sake of it, we are all fans and want DCS to become what the potential shows. These problems are critical, but don't often get shown with the small scale that most scenarios in DCS currently are. The dynamic campaign, will not work in the current state of the game, i have no doubt that ED are aware of these issues, because quite frankly they can be highlighted fairly quickly by dynamically adding AI to a scenario in any scale which would be considered necessary for modern day flight ops. There are so many fundamentals missing or not working currently "under the surface" and that's not to mention the MP side of things, that's a whole other beast. To my mind, in the approach to any kind of dynamic campaign release, we should be seeing these problems addressed. But we're not, or at least not being informed of any progress, which is the most frustrating. Sorry but based off evidence so far, using the dynamic campaign as an example, i just dont see ED releasing an all singing all dancing system with all these underlying issues fixed, like people seem to be expecting.
  4. Your better than this BIGNEWY, lets not trot out the old user scripts line and ignore the fact your well aware of AI pathfinding problems, not only on the deck but in general whjile navigating taxi paths etc. Apologies, but this line has been chucked out time and again to excuse ED failings, these user scripts (personally talking MOOSE here), show up how bad the base level from ED is, as all they do is plug into default game behaviour, which DOES NOT WORK on any scale which would be considered necessary for flight ops, its all well and good using 2/3/4, aircraft for one of your promo videos, try launching the best part of a full squadron and see what happens without having to manually block certain points to stop unwanted AI behaviour.
  5. Loving this so far EasyEB, fantastic implementation. Does what it says on the tin, chilled out, slow paced CAS goodness. One request if i may, could you increase the time the "current target pos" F10 options text box stays up for. As much as i like the memory challenge, a few less times going into the menu to get it to pop back up would be nice. Cracking job, though.
  6. Please implement this feature or remove it from the ui, its been in for far too long in a non functional state.
  7. Just to give this a little bump, hopefully these issues can be resolved. It is rather frustrating not being able to base certain aircraft where i need them, even though they should be able to.
  8. Adding my support for this... Please listen to these community contributors. They understand more than most, what we need and generally should be prioritised, for improving the experience.
  9. You still have to use the key combo for the Tomcat i believe. Shift-U
  10. I think, the thing to remember here are the different levels of script usage. You have the mission maker (like moi), who use systems/frameworks as everybody previously has mentioned, to make life easier and accomplish relatively complex tasks with ease. The other side are the more advanced mission makers, framework designers and people who have a good concept of .lua or whatever. They can produce advanced missions and frameworks for others to use. As much as i would like a "module" type system in the editor, for controlling carriers, IADs, Tankers etc. At this point i think i would like to echo a couple of others in here. 1. Please focus on SP/MP compatibility and getting a solid base to work from, where you dont have use workarounds for stuff that doesnt function in MP. 2. Rather than putting effort into new systems to replicate what we already have with MOOSE/MIST etc. Work with these guys, find out what limitations in the engine are being highlighted by using these frameworks and collaberate on deeper issues or new api's etc to help. 3. This is tricky i suppose because who do you invite, but potentially a monthly or every couple of months have a meeting/chat whatever. Where community members/framework designers with a good understanding of what is currently lacking, can discuss what is needed directly with ED coders. Rather than through the forum process, often being ignored or plain just not seen, because of the amount of threads there are already. (I guess this could be achieved, like has been mentioned, rather than a meeting, having a forum section that can be used for this purpose, only allowing "verified" contributors and ed staff to post, but allow everyone to read. Again as a lowly mission maker with no real talent other than copy pasting. I would love in built editor options for complex tasks. But at this point, i would lean towards a more stable base and features which have been highlighted as needed by these framework designers / scripting freaks . By all means in the future, lets get all this stuff added to the editor, but for now lets get everyone on the same page. Help them help us.
  11. This is a long standing issue, if client joins after mission start some of the statics vanish. Hard to nail it down why, but easy to reproduce if you stack the deck with statics. But this is not a recent problem, has been a thing since before SC.
  12. Super carrier test, with SAR/Tanker/Awacs overhead using MOOSE, for anyone not great with scripts. SCTesting.miz
  13. I would have to agree with this, it has never made sense why the Kutz and AB are part of this. If this was DCS:Naval Assets, with much more to come fair enough. But its not... Justy stick to it being the super carrier and add those two assests to the core, its not as if they are going to have any advanced features anytime soon.
  14. https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/personal/server/?login=yes
  15. If your just starting out in MOOSE, firstly welcome. Second, pop over and join the MOOSE Discord, there are alot more active users to help and much more content to search and find answers. https://discord.gg/v9RjWq
  16. I would still like to know what the plans are re. launch/recovery cycles. Its great posting all these guides with procedure, but that procedure relies on the ship doing its thing properly also... So i ask again, what are the plans in place for launch/recovery cycles, related to actual ship movement? Will it generate the wind over deck required for flight ops? Currently unless your using something like MOOSE Airboss, 95% of mission ppl dont even bother to make the ship move (granted this is due also to other issues like deck sliding, especially in MP) but still.
  17. Indeed, although the ships do not appear to be moving at all *cough* decksliding *cough*. Hoping to be wrong, but doesnt look like launch/recovery cycles (if there is such a thing implemented) include automated driving into the wind or speeding up... Again i would love to be wrong, but this video certainly doesnt allay my fears for this DLC. The animated cat shot looks great, dont get me wrong. But the rest of it to be looks like well placed statics, giving the sense of a launch cycle, with ships no moving and a calm sea state.
  18. Sure i had the SR as the main unit, but i will check. Very possible i did that one wrong as it has a CC unit. Will check later, cheers for pointing me in a direction. :P
  19. Anyone had any issues with SA-11's? If i set them as EW, they are active and respond to threats. But they do not appear to get activated by the IADS like the other sites. Just a general enquiry, it might well be something my end, just want to check.
  20. Awesome job dude, just had a right good ol' time, going up against it. Still not started on the nodes and command centers, having too much fun fighting it. :P Keep up the good work.
  21. PLEASE ED!! Provide additional "under the hood" changes in the changelog, that have been fixed. So we can test this stuff easier.
  22. Agreed Pikey Few more people need to realise how handicapped currently the scripting community actually are. There certainly isnt anything like the kind of communication there should be, to be honest, needs to be. For effecient feedback/testing of under the hood issues.
×
×
  • Create New...