Stix_09

This is covered in the help(menu) that comes with the program ... (as are many of the above questions) Under "Repository management" in this case.

FYI: They should also update the steam store to indicate that this. It only says you need the F-86 on the steam store description. This has led to some bad reviews on steam as a result. I would also be upset if I purchased content to later find I need to buy additional content to use it.

Labels This is what I do for labels: This gives better visibility without the default overkill labels. (Of course labels have to be enabled in game client for this to apply) This is based on what is done on the Red Iberia MP server. This is their blog post with the labels.lua script and description here You can put this in the mission file(as per the above post) and/or if you want to use this on your own client for your labels offline (overriding the default labels) by placing in this folder (the labels.lua script). Saved Games\DCS\Config\View This will take precedence over the built in labels.lua script in dcs located in this game folder DCSWorld\Config\View (Do not overwrite this default file in the games folder, use the saved games location above) You can also write your own custom labels.lua file and tweak to suite. It's commented and not hard to work out what it does. Precedence (highest to lowest) for labels.lua is The mission file => The saved games folder location =>The game folder location.

How about editing some of these older posts that are now outdated... OR for example is now possible in the editor, Its a big thread and still relevant, but some of these "TIPS" are really out of date now, considering when thread was originally started back in 2009... (A lot of DCS information is just so out of date now and misleading like this post) Especially for new guys starting out now trying to find good info. so trying to work out was is now false info is not helping the learn process. (and this is a main pinned thread on a very useful topic) Just saying... (and thanks heaps for the tips you did do back then, many are still very useful...)

ya, thanks I worked it out. The problem is "\" still works (only on the ground) even if you are NOT using simplified coms. That is the real BUG. This just creates confusion(as it did in my case). Just have one pilot coms option key and this issue is gone. There is no point having separate "\" key functionality for simple coms and another different coms key for normal coms. That's just a bad idea.

Problem occurs with Open Beta Build 2.5.6.43931(the new cockpit??) Tested using AI wingman, with 1)custom mission and 2)the instant quick mission "target practice" {also} Once airborne you can no longer activate the radio coms {menu "\" key.} (so no longer able to initiate comms at all with anything) ie pressing communications menu key {default= "\" } does nothing.(the usual radio menu does not appear) Changing radio channels does not fix this issue (yes I know how to use the radio) Confirmed it works as it should in Open beta 2.5.5.41962 & Stable build 2.5.5.41371 So far testing shows only the Blackshark Ka-50 is effected by this problem.

I have a different problem I have relocated my save games location onto another drive, the program is still looking for save games folder on the C: drive. (I hope that is not hard coded) Is there a config file to change this?

Did not work for me in firefox, it did with chrome however (also need make sure you have firewall open to app) As per doc notes: "You should now be looking at a web browser showing the DCS-BIOS Hub web interface. If that is not the case, verify that your firewall is not blocking the DCS-BIOS Hub from listening on TCP port 5010. also there are docs here {YOUR INSTALL FOLDER}\DCS-BIOS\apps\doc open index.html

It has to be a tuneable because viewing hardware varies so much. Mine is on 1.8 on my 32" 1440p display on current release beta patch. Prior to lighting update it was around 2.5.

I think "one" of the biggest limits of current non official mods is around the radio. This places real limits on using mods in game, when you can't interact properly with AWAC, carriers, ATC , and AI planes. Quote from one of the people that worked on the A-4E, Maybe one day ED with make features like this avail to modders, without requiring the full SDK or some limited version, that does not require a commercial developer application. NOTE: This is not about accusation, there are good reasons for the way things are, but I do believe "positive" discussion on this is healthy , and it may lead to some change in a good way for all.

I get that full SDK comes with some support from ED, and as they get no revenue from any non commercial mods, it would just be another admin expense and resource sink for them. Having access to the a full SDK and the internal bug tracker could also be abused by "black hats" in the community. On the other side of that coin is ED can benefit from content that improves the appeal of DCS to new members, and or keeps existing members coming back, or adds content that they can't include (for many reasons, not necessary for a lack of want to add it), or helps resolve problems with DCS. I think it may come down to ED just allowing more feature access, or limited SDK without the same associated support from them. Some thought would need to go into how it could work and benefit all parties. It is not a cut and dry thing, so less clear to the layman. But you have to take the approach "how can we make it work" , and not "why it will not work".

I'm sure you are correct , and I suspect the DCS purists will also spit the dummy on fictional stuff... I care not myself , though I prefer real maps.

It depends on what you can do with SDK. As already stated in discussion , for the majority of people that would try and use the info and tools, it would be far beyond their needs and skills, and they can already do a great deal with currently available info and tools. And they should start there. I don't think it would lead to more modules , but it can allow more featured ones. Tools and info != quality (But + skills and knowledge, it can). If and when they reach the limits of what they can do with this , then making the sdk a application process is the next step. I think the current roadblock is that process is not built around this type of modder (or mod community project) its currently only tailored to a full commercial developer. The process is quite stringent as a result. I would like to see that process made easier for teams with a proven ability and they just want access to features that they are hitting limits on in their project. which means ED would need to change the process (to also allow for this type of modder) or make a additional tools to allow this. The issue around this is probably one of resources and time on ED's part to do that. They would need to see enough value to do this. There also may be an NDA (non disclosure agreement involved), as the SDK could be used to hack , ripoff intellectual property of current devs etc and damage the game for example, not everyone is a "good guy". It's not quite a simple and cut and dry as it appears on the surface. A full SDK may not be required , just more featured unlocked (how? I don't know enough about the underlying engine to say). I'd like mods to be able to for example access more features of the ATC, radio coms with AI is something that is limited with current base tools for example. People involved in such projects could prob answer better what things they find they can't do with current mods then me. More free maps would also be cool, if the ability for the community to do that was possible... just think... (and map making is a big project too BTW if you want it accurate ) For REF# I also play car race sims, and I know its takes ppl a long time 1-2 years just to do a quality racetrack (alone as apart time "for fun" thing, but that doesn't mean ppl are not making professional grade stuff, they are.). AND I care not about mod dross that gets made , but those few gems that get produced are often fantastic, and you have to start some where, or have a background already... That argument is just plain bunk!

I can comment on this but I choose not to, so... Its prob better we ignore each others posts. Our thoughts are diametrically apposed , and it would just derail the discussion. I would never agree with your sentiments on this.

Yes and some have even been given new life (like IL-2 COD) due to community efforts, good on ya! You get the idea. and @zhukov032186 . No comment , the effort is wasted!