MagnumHB

I had it reset before, but I tried it with the Windows calibration, then the TM calibration, and the range of motion at least seems to be corrected, but the input sticks to one side or the other, especially with small movements. Still though, the raw values you can see on this test page are definitely skewed to the right and don't center out properly.

Well, I've had mine installed for a while, but I'm finally getting around to trying to calibrate it, and I just can't get it to work correctly in the X axis. After running the calibration tool many times, the range of motion left of center is almost nothing, and the input tends to stick at max deflection when the stick is moved to the right. Has anyone seen something like this?

Awesome, just grabbed one. Looking forward to it.

I've had the mixed fortune to find this thread now, right after the X/Y portion of my slew control died (the button press still works) after replacing the main right throttle cable for the second time. I'll certainly be jumping on the next batch for a replacement instead of springing for an entirely new throttle just to get the cheapest part on the whole thing functioning again. Should be able to order again in a few weeks, yes?

Still broken as of 1.5.8 open beta. Very annoying.

Really on the ball. Much appreciated.

Another possible related bug (or maybe just a symptom of the hack): I edited the joystick lua just to test out the functionality (just copied the relevant lines from the keyboard file), and it mostly worked, but with one small hitch. The normal switch sounds did not play when moving the mode selector with my new joystick binds. The sounds do play when moving it with the mouse however. The weapons selector was fine either way. In all cases, the mode switched properly, just with missing sounds on the mode selector when using the joystick.

Great update. I am wondering if there are plans to add additional keybindings to the Viggen for things like mode selector and weapons selector left/right, and the toggles addressed in this mod.

Nice work, I'll be using this for sure. I do hope that at least some of this gets officially implemented by LNS though.

It sure would be nice if ED could find a way to allow third party developers to release their own patches in a timely manner. It's unfortunate that Viggen fixes are ready to go, and we have to wait another week (at least!?) to enjoy them. Perhaps the modules, should be, you know, modular, and be versioned and updated independently of the core game.

That could certainly be argued to be a more sensible release policy, but it wouldn't be a proper ED patch release if it didn't introduce new bugs, now would it?

If you publicly add support for a new module to an existing version, then it's not really the same version anymore.

I think the simplest explanation is that the Viggen just isn't ready yet. A video posted a week ago has minor but obvious bugs, and a screenshot posted in the same thread several days later is described as a WIP. LNS has stated that their goal is to release in such a way as to minimize the amount of required bug fixes afterwards. ED, even if they know a potential target release date, can't really say much until LNS has a firm idea of when they'll be ready.

Ah, I was wondering what was up with that.

Thanks for that. Not trying to be adversarial, just hadn't seen those tidbits buried on the Russian side.

Where have you seen that info?

To tack on to this thread, I just finished the campaign with a marathon session of the last 3 missions (including having to re-fly mission 14 due to sloppy flying resulting in some AAA hits). My overall thought about it is that this is the content the A-10C was made for and has desperately needed for years now. Bravo for putting it all together. To add to a few of Lt.Snake's points: I thought the targeting was spot on most of the time, although sometimes it was necessary to use the AI to pick up some slack on more obscure targets (the breach at Suse being the best example). Speaking of the AI, it's funny how sometimes they are stone cold killers, and other times they are incompetent morons who fly into the ground or stop on the runway for no apparent reason. Also, I thought some of the enroute voiceovers were a bit much from a professionalism or editorializing standpoint on what would in the real world be a sterile comms environment. That being said, I completely understand why they have to be there to develop characterization, since DCS doesn't have cutscenes or similar. I agree that mission 14 was the toughest due to the challenging loadout. Trading the trusty CBU-105s for Mk-82s for killing armor was a hard pill to swallow. I was also pleasantly surprised at how much of an emotional impact the events in the last mission had on me. The string of Mk-82s I put down on the last ambush group was done with extreme prejudice for sure. Really, any negatives I mentioned are minor nitpicks. I greatly enjoyed playing this campaign, and would definitely recommend it to anyone who wants to really put the A-10C through its paces.

Minor bug I just noticed: If I'm not mistaken, at the end of mission 14 when calling for the SAM footprint status, there is no audio for Hawg 1.

The angle of view limit was already present in previous versions. The flipping is obviously a bug that needs to be removed.

No, this is new incorrect behavior within DCS, completely separate from the reference points going out of range.

I haven't had a chance to thoroughly test the newest version, but from what I have seen so far, I do want to express my appreciation for the feedback in this thread being listened to and the default view angle being taken account in the latest patch. That being said, I did notice some odd behavior that is most likely related to the orientation flipping that others are reporting. If I turn left or right to the limit to look behind me, the view will pause at the normal limit as in earlier versions, then suddenly snap to an offset position as if I had turned in the other direction. For example, if I turn all the way to the left, the view will suddenly snap to the position (give or take) that the view would be if I had turned all the way to the right, and vice versa. Edit: After more closely reading the other thread about this issue, it's possible that the image is in fact being flipped, but I haven't had a chance to check this yet.

Human head movement (more accurately, camera position adjustment) for TrackIR was already fine (unless you want to get into that neck mod that someone created) and does not and should not correspond with the correct implementation of VR, which is based on a completely different view system paradigm. What adjustments are you making? If you say you are lowering them in any way, you will negate your claim that you genuinely prefer the new way. Also, as I have said before, with the new position, you don't have your head up in the fight, you actually have your head too far up and out of the fight. The line of sight angle is simply too high. You want to maximize your visibility for CAS? Compare the new view to the old. Which view gives you better coverage of the ground for CAS? The old, of course. Besides, CAS in the A-10C involves a lot of use of the TGP and TAD. With the old view, not only do you get a better view of the ground closer to you, but you can also see the MFCDs without moving your head. I just don't accept the idea that the new view is more effective, and if it is somehow your preference anyway, your reasoning is logically inconsistent with numerous facts that I and others have presented in this thread.

Thanks for the input on that. The best I can come up with personally is a small selection of light GA aircraft. For what it's worth, the experiences match up. After rereading some earlier posts in the thread, it's clear that the premise behind the change is just plain flawed. See: This is simply wrong. Head position in TrackIR does not correspond with the actual field of view of the eyes the way it does with a VR headset. The default view angle as it was before is a reasonable estimation of what you would actually see while sitting in the cockpit with your head level. Particularly when curves are taken into effect, the only possible function of TrackIR can be to alter the view relative to the default angle. That is its express purpose, and changing that behavior is fundamentally incorrect.

Hence, the beef, as vicx put it. I would love to know if they honestly believe that, or if they just don't want to worry about splitting up the functionality for various reasons. To follow up on what Barao said before, even more evidence that the new way is wrong comes from aircraft attitude. With the A-10 in landing attitude, and a natural line of sight of 15 degrees down, the view will be roughly horizontally down the runway, which is correct. With a completely horizontal zeroed line of sight, the view is actually looking up away from the runway, which is just wrong. The A-10 also cruises in a slightly nose up attitude, and again instead of looking where the plane is actually going, the view would be unnaturally centered above the flight path.

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, I completely understand that there are likely very good technical reasons for a centered VR neutral point. The issue is that the centered VR neutral point should go away as soon as the "use VR" option is deselected, as it does not apply to TrackIR, and in fact makes it wrong. Given that this seems to be an unintended side effect of implementing a new feature, this issue should be classified as a bug. The correct solution to resolving a bug is to have the developers fix it, not to force users to edit config files or alter snapviews for something that worked just fine previously.