virgo47

Yeah, to clarify, I'm on TP v4.1 build 2 which is the latest stable. Everything else works fine, so I'll wait for the next stable thing probably.

Thanks, L-39 seems great, but IAS_EU in commons was forgotten and is still disabled: IAS_EU|ias_eu|Indicated Airspeed KM H|0|0|#Text#|0 I know I didn't deliver that one as an attachment, but I thought it was covered in the discussion. BTW: I'll wait for whatever other changes pile up, you don't have to release it just because of this.

@xoomigo Today I started Touch Portal on Windows and on the tablet and did some other stuff before I started DCS - and in the meantime (while I did nothing with TP) I got this TP notification: I hope you know what that E3081 may mean. I saw some general slowness when editing buttons and lag 1-2 secs between switching pages, but the rest of the buttons work fine. The page switch is not a problem for me, but it could be faster, of course - but this may be also impacted by the general complexity of the page (although I don't consider it extreme, really).

I didn't know about the survey - probably because it was more known in some MP communities? I play SP 99%. I tried some MP, but it was just SP with real "AI" so far... this is my time limitation and kind of (likely totally useless) insecurity about my flying. F1... I like that product a lot, with four variants it's (or will be) a lot of bang for a buck. Both "strange" (non US/Russian) planes, but F1 is much more attractive to me, so I fully understand it. Jeff seems quite niche (product, not as a plane). And I own Supercarrier for whatever reason and so far have never used it. Just as I hardly use F/A-18 actually , I probably clocked most time in L-39 and Su-25T... the latter I return to quite gladly even with all the bought modules, not sure why. But I guess I'm quite an outlier.

I agree... and amend: I fully understand love for one or the other, but I've bought F/A-18C not because of the difficulty related to the carrier, but because of the opportunity to learn it. So, while added difficulty, I see it more as an opportunity and more mission options. I'll probably buy F-16 too in some distant future, it is an amazing aircraft, but when choosing the more flexible of the two from the game perspective (and also more complete I hope), I went for the Hornet.

I don't think that 730 should be shown on the ground and it is correctly shown in the air. See my comment here: Funny enough, I wasn't able to absorb it from the manual during first few reads, but the Engine Overheat Protection System describes it just fine (p83-84), and JPT Reg test I and II follow these conditions. Perhaps the threads could be merged. I see only one discrepancy - the engine doesn't stop after landing when 730 lamp is on.

I originally thought that JPT Reg Test II should light up 730°C and the switch does not work correctly. However, lately I was reading operation manual to AI-25TL engine and it indicates some differences depending on the WOW switch. Now I don't claim to understand everything properly, but I'm now prone to believe the implementation in the module is good: On the ground, for the position II, the system only lights up 700°C and stops the engine. In the air the engine is not stopped, but 730°C warning is lit up - and stays so until fixed by the ground crew. The sections from the engine manual are (LIMITATION mode is tested by position I, SHUTDOWN mode is position II): And a bit later: L-39 module really does NOT shut down the engine in the air, light stays on, I just don't know how that shutdown on the ground works and what exactly is "soon after" regarding "the nose wheel comes in contact with the ground". I landed with the light on (after flipping the switch to II in-flight) and it doesn't want to stop "by electrical means". Reading the manual p83-84 actually checks with the engine manual, so I'd say the lamps 700/730 work fine, there is an obvious power limitation in flight when the JPT regulator engages (be it for EGT or because of the TEST II position)... the only thing I'm still waiting for is that engine shutdown on the ground. But I'd argue that the section on manual p85 is not correct (emphasis mine): I don't know whether the real switch is or is not spring-loaded, but the switch will not show 730 on-ground. The last sentence could also clearly state that the engine will be shut down on the ground, the fuel limiting valve is relevant for flight.

I'm not sure I understand completely... are the lines provided for L-39.pp OK? Those are all the lines that I modified. I assume you mean not to "forget" them if I have some changes in the future and instead cumulate those changes? I assume, that's because for you the baseline is the DCS-BIOS defaults (while for me it's the current state of PP files, because I don't see the initial one). But GitHub will make it all so much clearer, so I'm really looking forward to it! BTW: Originally my question about how to modify/patch the PP file was just for my internal needs on my end - for instance when I have some customization that is perhaps not best for public use (or not yet) and I just need to "patch" a new DCS-COINS. It was no suggestion, just a question whether the later lines override the sooner lines... (of course I can also try it, but you know the design).

I've updated the L-39 dashboard: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3336442/ There are various tweaks and fixes to the button behavior and visuals, minor reshuffling of some of the buttons - but also rework of the secondary Alt page with button covers (again, me learning Photoshop): Thanks to the Aircraft Model I was able to fix C/ZA discrepancies for the Start Regime button - and also indicate the variant in the upper left corner (for those who forgot where they sit :-)).

Sure, no problem, attached here are only the changed lines. Also thanks for the future adjustments, no rush with those. BTW: If I have some changes, like the lines I attached, is it enough to just slap them at the end of the original PP file, or do I need to fix the changed lines? That is, are the lines later in the file overriding keys mentioned before during the TP plugin file creation? L-39.pp

@xoomigo I went through the L-39 switches and the attached PP file matches cold-started L-39 100% (I hope :-)) and hot-started with just one minor difference. Obviously, the defaults are not universal for each way how to start or fly the plane, but in general, when OFF is in the middle, it is a good default. If you go over the differences, yes ENG_START_MODE for C and ZA is different, FRONT_BOMB_REL_SEL really is UP whenever I enter the plane (this one is not 3-way) and FRONT_ROCKET_MODE is also mostly set to 4RS. Thank you in advance for accepting the changes. L-39.pp

Thanks, very useful info, I started to play with the defaults for the switches with the default set to 1 (middle position) - which applies to many in L-39, although not to all, of course. The results are much more consistent and the dashboard switches don't switch to the 0 position when changing the slots. I'll provide the improved L-39 PP file soon after I tune it a bit. I wanted to ask about CommonData.pp as well. I've noticed that some ANGULAR_VELOCITY_* parameters are now sent very often, even when I just sit in a cold aircraft. What are these and do you want to send them? (I personally disabled them just to make my debugging sessions easier. ;-)) Thinking about that I realized that L-39 dashboard also needs IAS_EU (km/h) which is disabled by default, I even forgot to mention that people need to enable it, otherwise I'd need to provide some event that would calculate it from IAS_US (like I do for altitude which is not available in meters at all). Please, do you think it would be a problem to enable IAS_EU by default? I regularly use it and don't see any problem with it.

@xoomigoSorry to bother you again but I've got a question about 3-way switches. The thing is, that sometimes they are strangely initialized, although otherwise they work just fine for both pushing to DCS and reacting to the actual events. This mostly happens when I switch "client" slots. E.g. I get into L-39C and my Spotlight switch in TP moves to a different position than in the cockpit. To use a concrete example: FRONT_LAND_LIGHTS|front_land_lights|Front Taxi and Landing Lights Control Switch, TAXI/OFF/LANDING|1|0|UpTo2|0 What exactly does the order of values after the text mean? |1|0|UpTo2|0 Because this kind of 3-way switches (at least in L-39) have 0 for one of the ON positions (typically down or towards the pilot), 1 is OFF, and 2 is up/fwd position. For some reason, when I switch the planes to L-39 (or between the variants) I get wrong values for some of these 3-way switches. I check the values in TP application, I don't claim to have all 100% right, but the ones I checked, I use 1 (OFF) as the default position, so something is definitely changing it to 0. From the verbose output, I see all-caps output such as: FRONT_LAND_LIGHTS: 1 ...but no event that should switch the state. But the TP app still switches my button. I even created a separate test page where I have only this single button, then I switch the plane to L-39ZA, I get this line (and no events): FRONT_LAND_LIGHTS: 1 Yet the button switches to TAXI positon (value 0, instead of 1). The button looks like this: I know the value-backed button looks complicated (but hopefully not to you ;-)), but only the events should be considered, I don't press the button when strange things happen. Pressing it makes it all right, eventually (when the state and value sync). Please, do you have any hint on what can be wrong?

I'd also have no problem with removing simplified arcade modes which would save quite a lot of pages at the front of some plane manuals as well. FC3 model - OK, arcade model - no, thank you. If it helps streamline the development, great.

@xoomigo Thanks a lot for adding the Aircraft Model. It helped me to fix the button that was susceptible to strange behavior because of the both L-39 ZA/C events coming from the cockpit (in any of the variant), because now I can guard C/ZA event with corresponding C/ZA IF check. I'm pretty sure I'll use this for other pages in the future and it can be a be also used for hiding buttons that are not available in some variants (e.g. older P-47, etc.). I'm not going to hide ZA buttons in my L-39 page (that would be a lot of work that is not really essential), but this "type" information is a great help when some things behave differently. It works great! Big thanks again.

Thanks a lot, seems to work fine now. There is still minor itch with module selection, the first time I do it, it does not offer my modules, but if I just go Back and Next (or Next and then Select Module again, not sure right now), then it autodetects my modules just fine. Not sure why, but this is hardly a deal-breaker. Now, I'm going to play with that Aircraft Model.

Great, thanks! I've already downloaded it and before I'll let you know about the model addition, just a quick head-up: Something is fishy with F86 Sabre, when I want to add it the following popup appears a few times in a row and the module is skipped: I've tried to run it from console, but no output. @xoomigo One more issue, CommonData.json does not get into the TPP file although the checkbox is by default checked (and disabled).

Sometimes, Invert can be module-dependent - and also depending on the global setup you have for the pedals - you just need to check it, ideally hot start on the runway, check control indicators (RCtrl+Enter by default) and see there. Most modules also show the action of pedals in the cockpit, some don't (at least F-15C from FC3 does not). Slider is always a logical choice for non-centered axes... although now I see I forgot to check it but I'd definitely find out the moment when I'd start playing with curvature. Yes, you want wheel brakes as sliders.

I'd rather have this fixed than those other 3D errors, because this gives me feedback for the setting. If it can be fixed by some LUA adjustment as suggested above (I haven't tried it myself) then I don't understand the reason for waiting unless there is 0 people working for ED who understand this module. In any case, any kind of bugs accumulating in any module over time are really sad.

F-86 and F-5 were developed by Belsimtek that was more or less ED branch. There is no similarity to the current situation.

I had the complete T.16000M and TWCS+TFRP combo - and TFRP is part of TWCS as it is connected via the same USB cable. There is no separate TFRP (device or column in DCS) if you connect it through that RJ-style connector. Then: I didn't use toe-brakes on TFRP for single-handle-style brakes of East-bloc planes (e.g. L-39)... it doesn't make much sense, find another axis far away from toe-brakes for that. Otherwise, you risk interference between the axes. It is possible, but it is not the best solution, really. Finally: Enjoy the pedals while they work OK-ish... From the three products combo, I wish I omitted those. Yes, they are pedals, but they are jittery, jumpy, sticky... and too narrow for a male (not to mention too narrow in general).

I also agree with comments turned off under some YouTube videos, even some serious media do it, as it often does not bring anything constructive (or anything constructive is lost). I commend the effort and the format of the video, not to mention how easy it is to listen to Matts anytime.

The main server seems to go down quite often lately. Sure, it's not a mission-critical application, but a secondary server would be a neat idea indeed. It wouldn't have to deal with web, shop, etc., just the authentication.

While off-topic, I'll chime in about Yak-52 as well... Everybody has their poison. I like flying in Yak-52, and because it's not a fighter, I don't mind the damage model. Yes, it's arcade-like when you crash, and yes, I believe it is not complete - and that's probably one of the reasons why it's in EA. But what I don't understand are the easy things - like why don't we have working toggle bindings (toggles work only as ON), so we have to bind both ON and OFF for most switches? I appreciate it when something gets fixed. I believe ED has to fix more and more because more and more modules will simply force it - or at least deprecate some modules, or clearly say in the shop "We don't have time/manpower for this for any foreseeable future". I'm not long with DCS (if I don't count my short tenure during 2014) and I can see the progress, but even during ~2 years with DCS I've encountered bugs reported for years. Not just watching them for no reason. I returned to TF-51D after the flaps and canopy were fixed after a long time that was hard to understand. On the other hand, I can always focus on the module that feels good. And I try to do that. But just because something is not game-breaking, it doesn't mean it doesn't stand in the way to some people (arguably it doesn't to others, which is fine for them and I appreciate their attitude as well). DCS is still fun (or work/life, however you look at it ). It's just sometimes a labor of love or what... (in Slovak we have a metaphor along the lines "life of a monk/being in an order"). BTW: Originally, I got to this thread to see what release cadence can I expect with the single version now... did I understand it right it will be between 1 and 3 months? So... around two?

Terrains are by far the biggest chunk, check how much Mods\terrains is of those 228 GB.