scoobie

Oh, yes! Actually... assigning it to the first trigger detent is a severely dumb idea, sorry about that! I wasn't thinking, I'm new to Viggen and I was just trying to solve the same problem as yours, but didn't actually know which function in Joystick Gremlin (if any!) does the trick so I was experimenting. Found out it was this "Chain" feature. So yeah - you need to assign it to ANOTHER button! I guess I'll pick that grey button on the right "wall" of the joystick's "head".

Hi. If anyone doesn't feel like waiting... The first trigger detent on my joystick does the trick the OP had in mind (in a different way, but with the same effect). With each consecutive press, it alternates between two buttons on a (virtual) joystick: button 1, button 2, 1, 2, 1, 2... These are assigned to, respectively, "Trigger Safety Bracket ARM" and "Trigger Safety Bracket SAFE" in the Viggy. In the mean time, the second detent is simply the trigger - no magic required for that. It's just a few clicks, probably around 8, but I wasn't counting

Hi, ChillNG! I'm happy to see the campaign is ready now. I purchased it in the blink of an eye... now I only have to figure out how to find some free time to fly it Just a quick question, if I may? Aren't you getting your own "Ground Pounder Sims" sub-forum in "DLC Campaigns", just like all other DLC campaign guys?

My goodness! I know a few dozen words in Russian and a few hundred in English, so sorry for being too succint to do justice to this... THANKS A METRIC TONNE, BOYS/GIRLS! This 2.7 thing is just fantastic! (And my mediocre GPU isn't burning yet... how strange!) СПАСИБО БОЛЬШОЕ, МОЛОДЦЫ!

@cw4ogden Rest assured no one's... or at least not everyone is throwing out what you're saying! And - having no RL experience - I was just about to come and bring one of the arguments you just have - a common sense argument. If something was this dangerous, there would be special regulations or - what I wanted to say - there would be some protective means built by the engineers in the form of multiple VVI's connected to some warning system or some "auto-pull-collective" feature when vertical velocity (negative) increases dangerously or WHATEVER they could come up with to try and save lives. I have no idea what that would be exactly. But there's nothing of this sort in the real Mi-8 and that makes me think... maybe it's not an issue? Maybe it's not THAT dangerous? Maybe a sober pilot can just handle it without nervous glimpses at the VVI every 3 seconds? Or what would happen if the VVI got broken? All dead? Just my thoughts. Common sense arguments are, IMHO, very valid, but for some reason quite often underrated here. (Even if we intentionally skip the RL experience part of what you are saying - which we shouldn't skip, of course.) There is one "shady area" in this equation however - we don't get visceral physical sensations when armchair flying, nor do those who use 2D screens perceive space depth. This may be responsible for us falling into VRS easier than IRL, but even if this effect is true (seems very likely and VR users confirm the 3D view helps a lot), it's possible that it's just one part of the story, while the other part is that VRS is just off, exaggerated. Both things at the same time. How about that? As for "ED pilots saw it, so they must have concluded it's all correct" (someone wrote it above), it's... I'm sorry, but it's a bit childish. Here's a quick speculation - and you may come up with a dozen of them: [A pilot] - Hey, VRS is bad in this thing! [Devs] - But man, release is due on Friday and we really have no idea how to make it better. [Management] - Okay, good enough is enough for now. We may get back to it at some point in the future. No big deal, really, it's just life, nothing to write home about. But claiming that because you hired competent people (which ED apparently abounds in) your company have become "divine", "error-proof" is just... not true. Yes, I've learnt to be cautious and I fall into VRS very seldom now, but it's not the point. And, to make it clear - I'm enjoying the DCS:Mi-8 tremendously!

Maybe a bit off-topic, but... But you have noticed that instead of getting twice faster processors every couple of years, as it's been the case for a long time, we are now offered more cores running at the same clock, haven't you? There's a reason for this (e.g. atoms refuse to get smaller). Contemporary electronics is basically "done", pushed up against the wall and because of that energy consumption is going to limit us all. You can't have a 100-kilowatt computer at home (multi-multi-core), or at best only very few people could have them. Instead, get ready for some flavour of the so-called "dynamic tariff" from your electric utility, at least in the EU. What I expect is that programmers will be forced to re-learn how to write slim software (stop wasting H/W resources in our computers), but it will improve things only for a limited period of time, then even the most finesse slim software will hit the wall. Yes, it's been a breathtaking experience to observe how the technology was changing over last decades, but don't expect good old solid-state electronics to go far further from here. There's still some elbow room left, but not too much. Kilowatts are the (main) limit, you can't get more and more of them ad infinitum. EDIT: Oh, boy... I've just noticed I quoted a 2-year-old post. How sensible... Sorry! Still, we may and I'm afraid should expect a gradual slowdown in the evolution of our PCs.

Either what Rudel_chw says, or google "Larkin Aviation" - this one has minimal amount of cruise as you fly within a single city, so missions are action-packed and short. You can't find it here, but you may get lucky and still find it somewhere in the internet. Just look for a proper version - initialy it used PG map and later on Syria, there were versions for Huey and Mi-8. EDIT: Sorry - that was about the "action-packed" part. As for the easiest... I think none is easiest, all require you know how to fly the Hip more or less equally. BTW, Larkin is non-military, no shooting - so perhaps in this regard you may call it easy.

Yes, I knew it and thanks for bringing all these cool details! It's just... uhm... I'm not sure if there's a point of contention between us. I mean, what you wrote is just facts, it makes the picture broader.

But it's all been explained already and instead of having a good game you insist on cluttering the topic with clueless gamers' mumbo-jumbo: 1. The cyclic doesn't work, because you're staring at it. For the first time in your gamers' life look outside the cockpit and just align the helo against the horizon, like a RL pilot, then the cyclic works. Now, you may be wondering what's going on in this video Real linked, but actually it's an ultimate proof cromhunt was right - it's clear the pilot in the video didn't look at the cyclic and see - the cyclic works! What bigger proof do you need? 2. Stop constantly using engineers' calculations and all these figures! RL pilots don't and that's why their aircraft fly. Another proof. 3. Your anecdotal pieces of so-called "evidence", test reports and virtually anything you can provide, are worthless by the powers of sheer logic - you don't have a RL pilot's experience. Moreover, if such papers contradict RL pilot's experience, they are just wrong. It's actually obvious, just think about it - if a paper is wrong, nothing happens, if a pilot is wrong, he's dead. So if a living pilot says he's right, who/what would you rather believe, huh? 4. I don't mean to be rude, but it's been incidentally disclosed that Real is a dumb ass, and Ramsay, although a courageous man (good on him!), squandered his last chance, so just go, your input cannot be of any value, you've admitted already not to have any RL experience on helos. Stick to the facts - you don't. So go. [Sarcasm mode off...] cromhunt's input is actually very valuable! It proves something with great power. I know it's extremely pretentious to quote myself, but I'll do it (I'm a dumb ass, too): I didn't want to elaborate on that, but hell... maybe I should? No one's gonna read it anyways, so it can't do any harm. Pilots know everything about flying, but may know nothing about the difference between a "flight simulation" and a "fly game", they may even know very little about computers apart from them being useful to read news or e-mail a friend. Pilots don't have to be gamers or flight simmers. To make things worse, pilots are quite likely to care the least about flight sims. Why? For them such a sim/game is a rather funny attempt of achieving something that can never get close to RL flying, the very premise of sitting in front of a computer and pretending to "fly" may seem rather ridiculous to them (well, objectively, it is ridiculous), so why would THEY care? Sure, they'll be enthusiastic about the sim/game you show them, because they're "flight nerds", they love planes, but don't expect them to "dive" into it, split hairs, evaluate if drag/cyclic/whatever seems right etc. - they're outside of it. (SOME pilots may go down this rabbit hole, those who took pleasure in fake-flying, but it's only SOME of them.) Other people - bakers, plumbers, accountants - they may care a lot more. If they're interested in aviation, but can't fly any other way (life choices, health issues etc.), a sim is often their only chance to get a taste of it. Such people may get very nitpicky about how realistic this unrealistic flight is. [Silly stories mode on...] Lots of years ago I'd scuba dive and I was just thinking how this could look for me. Imagine this: there's "Microsoft Diving Simulator", "X-Dive" and "Digital Underwater Combat Simulator" Now, someone drags me in front of a computer and here's the conversation: - Dive! Tell me if it's realistic? - What? It's a computer. What do you want from me? - No, no, it's the X-Dive, man, a simulator, not some stupid "dive game", now go dive and tell me. - Uh.. yeah, alright, how do I move my fins? - Left and right arrows. - How do I inflate/deflate the suit? - Num+, Num-. - Okay... Hey, the bubbles go up, that's realistic! Hmm... when I press the arrows faster, I actually swim faster - how cool is that! Now wait a second... when I'm deeper the sound of air in the hose gets louder and "stingy"...I'll be damned! It's a great simulation, man! I'd never think you could have something like this on a computer! (I still think it's a stupid idea to sit in an office chair and pretend to be under water, but this game was actually cool, and the graphics, sounds, just as in real life. Impressive!) - I KNEW THAT! (says the diving simmer) And the conlusion is: "X-Dive 15 has a very realistic DM (dive model), confirmed by an RL diver!". Period. The above words (without "damn!" and "hell!") were printed on the game's box. A zillion copies sold worldwide. I mean, 5 thousand copies, it's a diving simulator after all - an extremely niche thing, but it was a great success. Some time later some nitpicky diving sim freak comes and says: - You, diver, have you noticed that bubbles on the surface look the same regardless of how deep/shallow you are below? Is that realistic? - Uhm... no, sorry, I haven't. If that's the case, it's not. - Have you measured the time it took you to get from one "anchor" (I don't know the English word - a cylindrical iron weigh with a loop used as a simple "anchor" for a buoy) to the other, along that line stretched between them at the bottom? - No, why? - It takes 20 seconds, so it means your swimming at about 16 knots. Is it realistic? - HELL, NO! - The air is drained from the tank regardless of your physical effort, no matter if you stand still or swim fast. Is it realistic? - No! Etc. etc. [Silly stories mode off...] See? No one gave me a "rulebook" for calling something "realistic", so how can I tell? The fact that I have RL experience didn't help much and I was mislead by the first impression. And I was truly excited about this diving simulation/game/whatever, I'm a diving nerd, after all, so how couldn't I be excited! Same goes to ANY simulation and ANY RL pilot/whoever who doesn't know what he could/should expect. It's just natural. cromhunt just picked a different rulebook. The bubbles go up, so it's good. Don't look at the stick and you'll be fine. If you're wondering if I have a life to live, then yes - I do. I took time to follow this cheap path (I admit) to ridicule what cromhunt's saying for a reason, though. I don't care if he's being full of himself, none of my business. I do care, however, that when people asked him to reveal how he thinks Gazelle's FM is right, he just ridiculed them with "shut up gamers, what do you know". Yes, it's rude, but I'm sure grown up folks can handle it, but he's potentially spreading misinformation... and these modules cost. Some may not care so much about FM and it's absolutely fine - she's a beautiful and dangerous bee, so go for her if you like (I'd love to!). Some other, however, are more interested in FM's and stuff and may choose to wait until Gazelle is reworked somehow. For example - myself. There may be others. If there's anything on the table that indicates the Gazelle's FM is actually right (and people here were just mistaken - it happens, not a sin), then I'm first in the queue for such news! @cromhunt So, please, have some responsibility for your words, Sir, ESPECIALLY because of your RL experience. It does matter, people read it.

For the record: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/support/faq/authorization/ "This error happens when an incorrect time, date, or time zone is selected on your computer. To eliminate the authorization error, you need to set the correct settings." It's just the "finesse" of Windows 10.

CG! That must be the correct answer, thanks! Didn't think about that. Yes, not "auto throttle" per se, obviously. "Me English cud bee weller". What I meant was that since you're adjusting throttles up and down constantly during the whole process, probably near the end of AAR, when she's heavy, your throttles are a bit more forward on average (more thrust) than when she was light - but since you don't realize that, it feels as it was "automatic" or automagic.

I'm not a pro, so take it with a truck of salt. I don't And until now I wasn't aware it could be a problem. You're right - you may increase the weight by even around 10,000 lbs and... I never retrim. Perhaps... the increasing weight is compensated kind of "automatically" by gradual thrust increase? If so, then you don't even notice it, because you're working with throttles constantly, over the period of 3 minutes. My experience is that once I've stayed connected for a long time, say a minute, it almost always mean I'll stay connected for another 2 minutes, until she's full. So, apparently the increasing weight doesn't spoil the fun. OR... staying at the same trim does make it harder, but I just got used to it and have become oblivious of the problem? I have no idea. I'd like to hear from someone more experienced, maybe I'm making the job harder for myself than necessary? As for the "proper" amount of fuel to take, you've sort of answered your own question. AAR in the Hawg (in DCS at least) is more of a hobby, than necessity

Hi, the instruments you mentioned don't react to instrument brightness rheostat(s). They're always 100% bright. (Correct or not - IDK). Secondly, left console backlight is powered when cold & dark. This was reported (IIRC a few months ago). Thirdly, A-10C II presents the above phenomena as well. Screenshot for reference.

(I wrote it before admiki posted, so I'll paste it as-is, anyway). I've just added Tarawa to the simplistic mission I had made when I was learing Huey, and tested. All ships feel more or less the same to me in terms of "ship-ground" effect. Tarawa felt equal to Nimitz, OHP probably the same, Handy Wind, I guess all of them. Oh, and yes, no doubt - this effect is modelled in DCS! Decks, helipads, roofs, water, ground, it's all there. If you want to test it yourself, hover just outside Tarawa's deck and slightly higher than the deck, then "creep" towards the deck, very slowly. At some point, when a "preprogrammed" portion of your rotor gets above the deck, you should feel a slight kick from below. Not big, but easily noticeable. To me it feels much as 0/1 logic, it's not gradual, there seems to be a specific threshold when ground effect suddently kicks in - 0%, then 100%. It probably isn't very realistic, but better than nothing and you do have to correct for it every time when landing on an oil platform, picking cargo from the roof of a tower block (a typical place to leave cargo for helicopters), so I'm happy either way Oh, if you want to test OHP, it may be tricky! The helipad is small and low above water, so depending on how you approach it (steep or flat), you might get different conclusions. As for the difference between ship-ground effect and ground-ground effect, it's difficult for me to say. I've just been trying to get the feeling of it, but no... I can't tell the difference. Either it's the same or at least similar. It would need proper testing, I guess you'd need a cliff (of Dover, maybe?) for such test. Yeah, Huey is huge fun and highly addictive Belsimtek should've put a "parental advisory" label on this module

Hi, OP was asking something different, so sorry for messing up the thread, but I'd like to chime in a tiny bit to what @Neurus wrote EDIT: and @Fri13 two posts above. Whoever doesn't use VR and has worn-out eyes - DCS gives you those "fixed views" (I can't remember how they're actually called in DCS). Those: rCtrl-Num_0, then you select "fixed view" Num_1..Num_9, then turn off "fixed view mode" by rCtrl-Num_0 again. Using them exactly this way is obviously PITA, but that's one of the reasons why some smart people came up with those "supplementary software" for joysticks (Joystick Gremlin etc.). Now, for me it's only a single tap on the radio hat on my TM Warthog throttle and I get a close-up on left MFCD in A-10C, or right MFCD, or the radio frequency dial in MiG-15, or whatever wherever, depending on a module and how I set it up. I don't "abuse" such views, but when I just can't see something - tap, it's there, tap, I'm back with TrackIR. It does work, it's quick, easy and lets me read those tiny TAD symbols. Really - it's a valid option to consider. That's all, sorry again!

Glad it works! Happy searching! Actually, when I get more free time I'll see if I can get rid of the "crossed eyes effect". I was thinking about it and came up with two "theories" why this effect may be happening. If my "theory number 1" is correct (tests are needed), getting rid of the effect should be pretty straightforward and lights should always work in unison. Hopefully!

I know it's not exactly the subject of this discussion, but you touched an important point that some people don't seem to notice. It's been an issue for a few decades now. Since everyone hates long posts, I'll make it short... A RL pilot, by the very fact that he/she is a RL pilot, is NOT a good "judge" to assess the qualities of a flight simulator. It's a common fallacy. Only a RL pilot who is also an aware/conscious/savvy flight simmer is such good judge. So, if you have an opinion from a RL pilot who doesn't play flight sims, you must take may consider taking their opinions with a grain of salt. Or better - with a boulder of salt.

That's why I ripped out the evil spring from my TM Warthog a week after purchasing the HOTAS. Ideally, you could visit a mate who has such joystick w/o a spring and see if you like it for fixed-wing A/C and only if you find it OK, "mutilate" your own. Of course such surgery is reversible, provided you're not as lazy as I am I didn't have such opportunity, but a) choppers were the thing that brought me to DCS and b) I don't have a problem with driving fixed wings with such loose joystick. For me it's like "meh, whatever". For choppers it's a big improvement, though. Just keep in mind poeple vary, so I don't know what works best for you. Oh, and if you're planning to buy an extension, especially a longer one, the spring should stay there.

Hmm... yesterday I tried AAR in A-10C and I swear something was just different than normally. My AAR was very bad yesterday, I'm not sure why (I might have been just tired, I don't know), but radio comms seemed different, too - just like Caldera said above. At one point I disconnected from the boom and the operator IMMEDIATELY said "return pre-contact" - when my receptacle was a foot away from the boom's tip. IIRC, previously the guy would say it only when the plane got too far away from the boom. Number two - when he said "return pre-contact", there was only: "Abort refuel" and "Exit" in the radio menu, "ready pre-contact" wasn't there. So, for the lack of the option in the menu I just tried to reconnect to the boom and it worked: "contact, you're taking fuel". AFAICR, previously you HAD to choose "ready pre-contact" after "return pre-contact" and then connect, otherwise the fuel wouldn't flow. So... it seemed different yesterday. Maybe ED have reworked something about AAR recently? No idea.

+1 To add a few more to what Seapiglet already gave - if you really have too many pots to spare {action = 3007, cockpit_device_id = 5, name = _('RWR Volume Knob')}, {action = 3016, cockpit_device_id = 58, name = _('TACAN Audio Volume')}, {action = 3014, cockpit_device_id = 58, name = _('ILS Audio Volume')}, I haven't checked all these axes for the Hawg, but at least most of them (if not all) will require settings ("Axis Tune") as in the picture below. P.S. If you lack axes in any plane, it's good to go to clickabledata.lua and see what's there. Some planes acutally do have lots of axes, but they're not "dragged out" into \input\joystick\ files. For instance, Mi-8 has quite a lot of them, but they're buried in the clickabledata.lua.

SQUELCH OFF = static cut out SQUELCH ON = static passed through It might have been the case that the artist, during cockpit graphic overhaul, put the labels in reverse. The radio works as labeled in the manual (smaller picture below, with orange arrows visible), not as in the cockpit (bigger, darker picture).

[DELETED] Sorry, wrong forum, I included pictures from A-10CII (in which squelch works in reverse in UHF radio), this is Huey forum. Sorry.

Thank you, Rudel_chw! So... yep, he turned left (east) to Bravo, then left (north) to Golf. I followed him from Alpha via Golf. Aw, thanks a lot for these explanations, Yurgon. It's really the insight noobs miss! See, when you're new to DCS you don't have a faintest idea on what's going on around, e.g. AI behaviour. Sometimes I feel like a child in the fog That might have been it! Perhaps I should just wait for the cool-down period (yes, I remember he mentioned it) and perhaps then he'll speak. I'll fly again today, thanks!

Hi, BD! Oh, I wish I had had such an interactive, Hollywood-style campaign for beginners when I was learning the Hawg. Damn it! I think I'll get it either way, you can never have enough campaigns. Point 1: Is it intentional that some voiceovers are so deeply overdriven? Some sounded very, very "sharp". Point 2: Now... I guess it's just me - I messed one thing up (as always!) and the rest might have been just the result of it, but just in case - my testimony from memory (I flew the mission yesterday). Everything was fine until my lead was to land. First he told me "roll down the runway to the very end, there's taxiway Alpha, stop there and wait for me". I did one thing wrong - I turned left to Alpha, but stopped as soon as my tail just cleared the runway, i.e. I didn't cross the holding position line (striped yellow/black). My bad. That might have been the cause for this... My flight lead got "scared away" and went around - then I undestrood my mistake, pushed my Hawg behind the holding position line. The lead approached again, this time landed, but turned into an "earlier" taxiway. I couldn't see clearly which one (I'm not familiar with the place), it might have been the neighbouring one to Alpha, so Bravo in such case. I found that strange - he said he wanted me to wait for him - but okay, I just started taxiing along... Golf (was it?), far behind him. Then he said something like "Park next to me". I arrived at our initial parking ramp (now I can't remember its designation), one strange thing I noticed was that he parked "in reverse", i.e. facing the opposite heading from the one at the mission start. Maybe that's just how it's done, I don't know. I did a little slalom in between trucks and all those crates/stuff tossed around the place, and I tried and parked at various places: my starting position, to the right of him, a few other places, but he stayed indifferent and didn't talk to me any more. I wonder if anyone can mess up missions as well as I can! Sorry about that. Regardless - great idea for a campaign! Not only for people new to the Warthog, I think, but also as a refreshment training and... I feel the Hawg has still some mysteries, some ways of utilizing its computer science / systems that I haven't thought about yet, so the campaign can teach me new things!

In terms of flying Mi-8, two things are perhaps worth mentioning: 1. VRS in an insidious flavour. DCS: Mi-8 likes to fall into VRS more than Huey. Or perhaps it's the other way round - it's just easier to prevent VRS in Huey. The solution is to accept this fact: in Mi-8, for every low speed there's a collective position that prevents VRS. In other words it's not 0/1 logic, you will be pulling collective SEVERAL TIMES to arrest othewise self-increasing vertical velocity (sinking) as you're slowing down to full hover. Gently of course (otherwise you'll baloon). Work with her, continuously, she'll like it. Since I understood this rule, I have entered VRS only once... on the day when I told myself: "Hey! I'm immune to VRS!". 2. It may be a bug or a feature, I don't know. "HDG HOLD" autopilot is helpful in cruise for compensating crosswind. The quirk is that when you move your pedals out of the centered position, you CAN'T turn off HDG HOLD. The lamp will go out on its own, but HDG HOLD is still "ready to engage" as soon as you center the pedals. In such conditions pressing the red disengage button doesn't work! I got cought with it several times. So, when approaching your LZ, center the pedals and turn HDG HOLD off, then continue flying. Otherwise HDG HOLD will be messing up with your manual inputs when you are low and slow and erratic control is the last thing you want. It's difficult to explain with words, but you'll feel something's wrong with her - as if she got a mind of her own instead of just listening to you. EDIT: No, sorry! Not two things - there's one more phenomenon that may bite you one day. 3. ALT HOLD oscillation. Most of the times, when you engage ALT HOLD, it will just "snap", i.e. stabilize the altitude as expected. Sometimes, however, she will start to go up and down, uuup and dooown, uuuuuup and doooown in ever increasing oscillations. This will ruin your day. I do one or two things when this happens: A. Before you press ALT HOLD, make sure she's trimmed nicely and vertical velocity is as small as you find practical to trim her to. Zero is perfect, but at least "small". In these conditions, oscillations are unlikely (or less likely) to appear. B. If "A" didn't work, I noticed that ALT HOLD autopilot (working on the collective) seems to be fighting against pitch SAS channel (working on the cyclic) and vice versa. If so, I start watching ALT HOLD channel pointer - this white bar on the center pedestal (the rightmost one) and I "fight" it with the stick. If the bar goes "greedily" down (less collective pitch), I pull aft on the cyclic. If it goes up, I push forward on the cyclic. I don't think it's an "official" technique, I doubt it, but that's just what I do and typically it takes 2 or 3 such corrective pushes/pulls, when ALT HOLD finally gives up and "snaps". Once ALT HOLD gets steady (on its own or with your help), it stays steady, nothing more to worry about.