virgo47

In my case, one year later, I'm still using STECS daily. I don't see any quality problems yet. Of course, sometimes I miss something (e.g. the Standard base has way too many buttons and very few actual switches), but whatever this throttle does, it seems to do it well. I enjoy the easily accessible tension screws and swappable detents, both I use quite a lot. All the reservations still apply, of course - the throttle is top-heavy towards the max position, I'd welcome more axes on the grip, etc. As I don't have any other throttle except for my broken TWCS, I use STECS only and until it breaks, I'll stick to it. What then? I have no idea. Hopefully, they will give us better STECS, better defined 5-way hats, etc. Otherwise, I may try another product, just to see the difference.

These are all sad graphical bugs, the "long hand" definitely affects the gameplay as well if you go for that immersion. I'd like to see them fixed as it really looks ugly when you look around. But this "new" one is a sad regression that takes away some feedback from us. Perhaps not the twisty grip, but the distance scale does. If we "integrated" the bugs over time, even if their weight (severity) was low, it would be an immense value of bugginess for sure. And, L-39 is not even the worst module. But I really don't understand why it's fixable by a simple LUA change, yet we can't get it to the release. What is ED afraid of, that doing something will make the module worse than doing nothing? Because that would be a terrible message about the fragility/code quality.

Hi Xoomigo, I've tried the patch, I see the new patched EXE in my TPP, it all looks OK: I reimported it into Touch Portal, but when I try it, it doesn't work. With verbose output, I still see 65535 with slider maxed up, not 0. I've had my UH-1H.pp already modified, I identified these changes (two of those are the same as you provided): ADF_GAIN|adf_gain|ADF Gain|6|3200|=ictr(65535)|0 INT_VOL|int_vol|Intercom Volume|6|3200|=ictr(65535)|0 UHF_VOL|uhf_vol|UHF Volume Control|6|3200|=ictr(65535)|0 VHFFM_VOL|vhffm_vol|VHF FM Volume Control|6|3200|=ictr(65535)|0 VHFNAV_VOL|vhfnav_vol|VHF NAV Volume Control (step size less than 8192 may not work)|6|8192|=ictr(65535)|0 Is there something else I can try to see what is wrong?

Ops... silly me, I copied the one from the zip having both zip and dir next to each other! I tested this fix and the error is gone, thanks. I'm looking forward to that ictr= fix as that will make the volume sliders in UH-1H work as expected (some of them at least, e.g. that VHFFM_VOL is affected).

Oh... I never cared THAT much about new features and I'm willing to wait. But with this perspective, I now see their bug-fixing schedule in a different light! (The problem is my expectations and less patience for bugs than for features.)

I didn't have problems with the antivirus (using MS default one for Windows). I deleted the whole DCS-BIOS folder from my Saved Games\...\Scripts and started the installer again. After installation, the dir is created fresh (15:57 was current local time): The BIOS.lua file was in its original form. After selecting modules, the installer changed the file, commenting out all unused modules. As long as I selected only F-5, it was OK - I could repeatedly open and "Next" the Select Modules windows. When I selected NS430, it accepted it the first time, but the next cycle (Select Modules, Next) showed the error again. Next, I reopen the Select Modules again, unselected NS430 and selected my modules - and the error appeared again. But the next cycles (when NS430 was deselected after entering the page) were fine again. It seems it doesn't like when NS430 is ticked when I open that Select Modules page. I also noticed a brief moment that the changed checkbox shortly shows its original state after I press Next, not even NS430 but Yak-52 as well. Not sure what that is (some model/UI sync?). Now, obviously, this is no showstopper as the module does not work properly anyway (on DCS-BIOS side, if I understand it correctly). BTW: What makes you say that my BIOS.lua was not modified by the setup? I see the lines edited every time I confirm the Select Modules window.

I suspected NS430 somehow. File is included, it differs from the original BIOS.lua only in commented-out modules (and LF vs CRLF, but that is inconsequential, I guess). BIOS.lua

I started the setup, went to module selection (now remembered, thanks for the explanation with new DCS-BIOS installation), Next, OK. Tried again, and click on the Next generated the error. Files are included - copied with the error still on screen. ACJSON.cfg DCS-COINS.cfg aircraftModules.cfg

Guys, does this still work for you in the latest version? I didn't need it for some time, but today I tried and the tooltip merely repeated the keybind. I haven't changed that autoexec.cfg since it worked. EDIT: Forget it please, it works now. I restarted the DCS and it works. I'm messing with bindings for a new module, maybe that threw DCS off, but I don't understand the details. But the main message is - normally, it works!

It's not common, especially in proprietary software for sure. I've seen some progress reports in % in different areas for some DCS module, not sure which one that was though. And the question then is... how realistic are those % numbers. As in... the hardest work starts after 90% or so. The bottom line is: I'm not sure how useful such progress reports would be from ED (e.g. two weeks away for many months, etc.). Probably not much. Or perhaps it would just cause backlash and "are we there yet?" questions.

I've tested it this way. In UH-1H.pp I redefined this line (one of the reversed knobs): VHFFM_VOL|vhffm_vol|VHF FM Volume Control|6|3200|=ictr(65535)|0 I created the TPP file with the installer. I check that the same PP modification is inside the TPP file. I imported the plugin. But the slider still sends 0 for lowest slider value and 65535 for maximum slider (checked with dcs-coins -v). This is the same as with =ctr... What did I do wrong? (I tried to create the slider from scratch as well, no change.)

Thanks for the release! I'm testing it, the first thing I encountered during the installation is this: This happens rather randomly when I reopen Select Modules window and just press Next. When it happens it keeps happening, but the selection itself doesn't seem to be the problem. E.g. I removed NS430 and saved (Next), this error appeared. I reopened the window, NS430 was unselected, I selected it again, and Next worked fine this time. The same happened with other checkboxes, but I haven't tried them systematically. I was also surprised... I thought the modules I own were preselected previously, but maybe that's just my wrong assumption. I had to click all the modules I had. Is that how it should work? On a positive note, L-39 patches are in as expected, thanks a lot, the initial switch positions are now better.

The product page clearly says: The additional radio was one of the features I wanted when I bought it. I was very sad after the purchase and felt misled (although ED reps say it's insulting to imply they mislead customers and it may even lead to warnings). I'd be surprised if anything significant improved on this module anytime soon.

An hour into the sale, millions of people saw the video and... shop is still oblivious about it. Shouldn't it be all ready when someone presses the red button?

End of (Summer Sale) or (End of Summer) Sale? Any sale is welcome, of course! I've had a birthday recently, so it comes in handy for a late present.

I was trying to perform the Level 8 training mission (AA-TWS), but it took quite a long time before both targets were "large boxes" (track targets). At that moment I changed them to system targets (TMS up) and bugged one of them (TMS up again). However, it was already a bit late so it seems, as they headed to my right. At this moment, the mission is unpaused, but when I wanted to turn towards them, something that was NOT mentioned in the mission (unexpected autopilot) kept rolling me back left. If I left the plane as is the missile (AIM-120) never reached the maximum launch range and the locked plane dropped out of lock. Was the mission designed with different radar/range parameters or am I doing something wrong - most of the time I'm in the active pause anyway. Lesson 13 - Air-Air TWS and TNDL Use.miz_12092024_22-43.trk EDIT: As a side note, for training missions, I'd not hide the enemy units, it is very frustrating to lose it and not be able to use F10 to understand at least what is happening. This applies to all F16 training missions I encountered so far.

I found this thread after searching for "fuel pressure zero". Because that's what I saw on the multiplayer server in one of UH-1H. I'm not sure what it showed at the start, but there was no other warning, I didn't crash the helo, so I have no idea why the gauge didn't work (or stopped working, not sure). Perhaps also a random issue. I wanted to reproduce it, but could not - and didn't take any track from the first flight.

Rudel's observations are definitely more in-depth, I had no other type of groups in my mission, only my client planes/helos and static units. They may be waaaay down in the priority list to consider as the "first" unit to look upon. But all the other hassle I mentioned, that was definitely based on that groupId (based mostly on the order the units were added into the mission). It would be cool if we could simply say "focus on this unit/object before I select any client".

I was also annoyed by this, having client-only missions that first viewed Anapa aerodrome in a completely different part of the map. From my experiments it seems to be FIRST added unit that is not a client. So recently I started to add some static object first. Be it a cow or some kind of static airplane. It always shows that one first. Reordering doesn't seem possible, so you can try to copy some units (but this may break some parts of the mission). Sometimes, if I don't like the static object in the initial view, I use it in such a way that I move it to where I want it and change it to another object I actually want. But you can do this only for the same category of objects (e.g. static object can't be changed to non-static-model airplane).

Besides this (also found this during the trial), I'm also confused about this: I guess it's wrong? (My previous experiences often proved my assumptions wrong, hence the question mark.)

You have to hover over the other columns, not over the left one - see: And with this info, you can try to use this answer to a similar question of mine by our champion Rudel_chw: Hope this helps and works for F-16 as well. Is it straightforward or practical? Not really. But that's what we have.

A dramatic turn of events here: ISP looked at the problem again, after I asked if they expected I'd talk to Deutsche Telekom or colt.net directly (which was a rhetorical question, of course), and voila, after a week they announced the problem was fixed. And indeed, while colt.net is still in the route, it does not throw away my packets and my favourite ED page works more reliably now!

While a few bugs are fixed here and there, for me it's an abandonware - I just hope not forever. I despise some cheap bugs most actually, I don't care about the damage model, but that controls named "xy toggle" don't work as toggle? Was there any QA? Or did it brake soon after and they left it there as many other bugs for years after? Yak-52 embodies all the cheap bugs in many other modules that are 99% easy to fix... yet left there. Other than that... it's a sweet prop trainer, would be a great module for those who like these. I do. But the quality is terrible.

I landed in the fourth training mission (VFR landing), got to the end of the RWY and turned right as instructed, but then got confused where to go. Everything was full of other stuff, so I got to the only free spot, but the mission didn't progress - I tried to press Space, to be sure, no help. How was this meant? jf-17-training-cornered.trk

This would make running the server much easier as Windows is not only more costly but also has a bigger performance overhead and is generally less controllable than a Linux server.