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How about editing some of these older posts that are now outdated... OR for example is now possible in the editor, Its a big thread and still relevant, but some of these "TIPS" are really out of date now, considering when thread was originally started back in 2009... (A lot of DCS information is just so out of date now and misleading like this post) Especially for new guys starting out now trying to find good info.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!

I totally agree, but for majority of stuff , you don't need a full SDK. DCS is already quite mod friendly as it is. I'd love to see some more free maps for sure , who wouldn't , however that is a massive job too (if u want an accurate representation , you would need to also make many new 3d assets). Not sure if you would need SDK to link into DCS , but I think would. Map access is a very contentious issue in DCS, it creates division in the player base. There is a new free map coming (thank god , yes). I like what IL-2 GB has done, you can only use maps you don't own in multiplayer (not on your own server though), and you still need to own the planes/vehicles. That would be cool to in dcs.... DCS is the only real full modern era combat sim on the market , (IL-2 GB series is also ww2 combat sim, has good flight models , very good damage models (nothing is perfect) but DCS goes deeper in terms of systems and cockpit modeling. Microsoft Flight Simulator X also but that's not a combat sim , so none of the fancy avionics and weapons, so less complexity ... (there are some others , not trying to make a comparison of what is better than what, each does something better and worse) Modules and stuff in DCS cost a lot in relation to the time spent making them , then you have to make a profit as well. A lot of people don't get the time and research involved in doing quality accurate stuff, (including all the test , bug fixing and performance tuning). There is a lot of admin stuff behind the scenes too , its all $cost for a developer in DCS. And if is commercial then you also have to document and support it... You can't blame community projects that don't want to go there, however that doesn't mean features of dcs could not be made avail to them, currently unavailable without the sdk. I'd like to see some way to allow that to happen, but how is the question?. (my knowledge of dcs development is not that deep , yet...) Currently that is not available , you are either in or out (I get the reasons, why its like it is, I'd just like that to have more flexibility then we currently do.)

Yes You can't sell anything without licenses from the manufacturer. ie if u put a radar system in plane it needs license from owner, plane needs license, usually any name brand item/component etc (basically almost any component or plane needs licenses to make commercial sale) That's why in games you often see no-name brands on stuff ( just look at car sims , same issue, even name race tracks etc) Then you may have to comply with owner of the intellectual properties conditions as well, what ever you negotiate with them. Some will not even allow you to use the item at all. Its a complicated time consuming process to go through. And that is only part of the problems, once you make something a commercial product.... (read back previous page. My post and you can see some of the other reasons (direct from a community dev) https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4206915&postcount=33 See also post #37 by Pikey (previous page)

Has this changed since this article was posted back in 2015 much? Because I noted that HE ordinance does not damage armored units as far as I can tell, so it must be more than just hits points?

For those interested A-4E ver 1.4 upcoming info link: I think one of the current features they can't do is radio coms with AI, so its not possible to use the A-4Eand have wingmen control of the AI. I'm still working my way through all this to understand the limitations of not having an SDK. I still think it's an impressive piece of work considering its a community effort.

@zhukov032186 My request was ironic... From your comments I hear your listening. I'll just agree to not agree with your "arguments", because we know each other so well. My apologies and thanks to those that answered anyway, for the specific details.

I'm currently reading through these dated doc's, though much is not in these still from my reading. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=116901

Thats just nonsensical, If u don't like a mod , don't install it , no one is forcing you too. And I've already made it clear (well I though it was pretty obvious) that I know the amount of work/skills required to make a good mod was substantial. So you saying the two mods I've used as example are half backed crap? I have a degree and experience in programming I know whats involved in this type or project (not the graphics and fm/dm's etc, but also substantial time and talent ) Please point me to the to the application process. I'd like that. EDIT: (this explains why these guys will not make it a commercial project, BUT it does require actual reading of the posters comments... neither do I want these to be commercial, and that's not because I would not pay for it, I would.) Quote from one of the devs on redit full article:

No, not talking about making money, that creates all sorts of licensing issues with intellectual property of the planes and systems. I'm talking about quality community mod like the A-4E and to keep it free (as in freedom to use). You missed the point. Its not always about making money for the team in question. These are community teams , not commercial projects, with hours of work put in because that are willing to spend their free time on something they enjoy. But that also doesn't mean that it makes DCS of less value to new user, quite the opposite, in many games its created more sales. Some have exploded because of mods or been given new life. Its just a case of how ED manage it. Even if its not allowing access to a the full SDK , maybe just an adjustment with more hooks into game features is all that's required. We are still talking about controlled SDK access or at least not locking features behind it. I've never seen a project where mods have impacted sales. Its almost always the opposite. This type of thinking is very short sighted. That's pretty disrespectful for those teams to say that, considering the efforts they have already made to produce such quality projects. Hundreds of hours have already gone into such projects. And you also missed the point. Some features require the SDK to get access to You understand the SDK means Software Development Kit? Without an SDK mod scope is limited , things like the radio and ATC coms limitations for example. (The SDK is required to make them fully functional) Its nothing to do with licenses or money. This mod is an example of something as good as many (if not better) than some current paid mods. (and its not impacting sales or quality of dcs right now, thats just BS to say so) I have heard nothing here that is a realistic reason (if managed right) where this can't work and be of great value to dcs. (basically talking about free value to dcs, increasing the value of DCS, plane mods just scratch the surface) Like I said managed right is massive potential value to dcs. The resistance in this thread is quite absurd. I don't know enough about process to apply for sdk , but it sounds like the current blocks are due to only allowing commercial companies access. Much of the info is not public from what I've tried to find, until you apply for one. Maybe someone that actually done this could confirm.

TBH I think for community teams that have proved they can product quality content (like a-4E/ MB-339) I'd like to see them have the ability to enable features that are locked behind the SDK. The amount of work involved to produce content of that quality is substantial. AND yes I also would not like to see a pollution of low quality mods (or UFO"s in DCS). BUT I only see this adding to DCS sales if a few more planes could be added into the free game. I really don't see that being a sales loss to ED, quite the opposite. Also I really can't see this creating a huge quantity of free user made modules(impacting sales) , when they would need to be of a certain quality standard like this (it takes a long time to make mods of this quality, and teams like these should be helped, so it can be added to free part of DCS.

Witchcraft tool does something similar, maybe looking at that tool will help. NOTE: There is a also a problem with the tool install (a fix is discussed HERE) Witchcraft is an interactive debugger that allows debugging your DCS LUA code in web browser and it has a way to get around the sanitisation using a bypass(as discussed in its install docs) (see https://github.com/jboecker/dcs-witchcraft/blob/master/README.md) for details This may be a work around for your problem by bypassing sanitisation {see Initial Setup and Preparing the Mission sections} Do note however the following comments from "MissionScripting.lua" --Sanitize Mission Scripting environment --This makes unavailable some unsecure functions. --Mission downloaded from server to client may contain potentialy harmful lua code that may use these functions. --You can remove the code below and make availble these functions at your own risk.