virgo47

I'm not here to judge the charts and realism shown above, but I tried two modules from Magnitude 3 - that is both of those released. I even considered buying the CE2 just for fun (because it is), but I have one main gripe with DCS, regardless of the module and the vendor - and that's the long-standing bugs. ED is a master of those, but CE2 has a couple of those as well. The displays for the radio and fuel flying around the view... I'm not even going to the flight model - I'm no real pilot. I just want something that feels maintained over time. Now I'm trialling MiG-21. It was a whim, really, it could have been F1 or M2000, but I decided to try MiG-21 for a change - without even considering the creator behind it. I'm sure the module has its strengths, otherwise, it would not be on the store (let's forget about things like NS430 or some other support modules we just don't know where they go and when/if they actually get there). But I was let down by a few things in just a few minutes - before getting to the flying: I can't bind elementary things to the mouse as I can for other modules (Zoom normal, single mouse button click to toggle the clickable cockpit, etc... why is it even prohibited to bind any button to the mouse?!)... and then the brutally unprofessional tone of the first tutorial mission. I mean, I'm generally a fun(ny) guy, but that was way over top, not to mention the "fun" stuff took away the space that could have been more informational for a new pilot. (Yeah, I know there is a manual.) I generally root for any team of any size that delivers, but I root much more for those that (by the way) show how it is possible to care for older modules too. How can I be sure the Corsair will not be in CE2 state any time soon? Now, granted, there are real life issues, I mean, if you get out of business (because anything unexpected happens in a life of any one member of the said small team), I can understand that. But at there should be some continuity. Some month in a year when you fix old bugs or something. Or declare the module officially as abandoned, I don't know. But I wish to know the status of the modules. And yes, many of ED's modules are in (or close to) "abandonware" status as well. Nothing is for ever. But I'd like to now about it.

I totally forgot this is possible, because I always rebind it to a single BTN3 (middle button) press. Thanks. But it is still annoying I can't rebind it to my liking. This is my first moment in the module, I wanted to set mouse as in any other module, and I can't set things like Zoom normal to mouse or clickable cockpit toggle to a single press of some mouse button. I didn't expect such a deviation from the ED's modules.

Why can't be this bound to a mouse button? Is this a regression or was it like this from the start? Mouse is the last column and it is disabled. It is quite annoying to have it different from any other plane - and it's so obvious I want to toggle it with the hand on the mouse.

Just tried it after the latest OB patch (2.9.2) and the problem still persists. I definitely clicked on Normandy 2.0 Trial - and that is what my licenses show (no other Normandy there, I checked all the pages): Yet, the modules download shows: And after the 40+ gig download... Better luck next time. Half a year is not that long after all.

This is very good info, but it seems to be left out in the current version of DCS L-39 manual - why is that? Anyway, I'd like to use L-39 for some aerobatics in a structured manner - but I can't find anything relevant to the L-39 aerobatics. At least nothing at the level of details shown above for the loop. Do you know about some list of figures and the recommended flight parameters for them? I know I can (and will) experiment, but I'd welcome any recommendations. DCS-specific or real-life based material, I don't care.

I believe the Zoom Normal (default) and the initial one should be the same - determined by the default view (13 or 14 depending on head-tracking or VR on/off). That makes sense, but the initial view was broken for some time, and Zoom Normal was broken until the first snap view (or some other tricks, I don't know) was used. Now it works as I'd expect the game to work. Zoom Normal is consistent and the initial zoom is the same.

I went over the planes I fly most at this moment (L-39, F-86 and some FC3 ones) and reset the default view for them (press View Center, move/zoom the view as required, then Save Cockpit Angles). All the default views on these planes were saved correctly and seem to work the next time I enter the plane. View Center and Zoom normal also work as expected after I change the direction or zoom. After that, I just copied the view [13] to [14] as well, so I have the same default with head-tracking and I was done. I tested the Zoom Normal, works fine. Recentering the head-tracking puts me into the default view direction, also works fine. So the transition is annoying, but afterwards it works with or without head-tracking - at least on my end. I hope it will last longer than to another update.

I can confirm it works now. If I recall correctly, it was the magneto switch step missing, although I couldn't figure it out in the mission file. I don't remember ever turning it off before (or being prompted to). The switches were actually the very last step before the announcement that the mission is over. Great! Thanks for the fix.

OK, a little addendum... I reset my default view (with RAlt+Num0) and it seems to work... Does it mean that default views for all the planes "just" need to be re-stored? Other stored snap views actually work fine. Even after DCS restart the default view re-set for L-39C seems to work fine - even right after the start. But if anything was fixed (because something definitely changed!) I didn't see any "default", "view" or "FOV" mentioned in the release notes.

Mind you though, that after this you select the snap view with VIEW keys, not snap-view bindings. At least that's how it works for me.

Jeez, perhaps I read all your post wrong from the start. I focused on the F/A-18C vs other planes difference... Silly me. So the question is: Does F/A-18 AB really start at 74-75%? Isn't it more like 82% of the throttle? I don't know really. What I can confirm is that around 75% it looks like this in the cockpit: On the outside, the nozzles just started to open and there is NOT a flame visible. The flame comes out around 82-83% indeed, and the cockpit reads: Just a slightly lower throttle cuts the flames and FF drops to <140, and then it drops quite quickly all the way to the 75%, from there lower the FF change seems to be slower and slower. So it SEEMS the marked detent on 75% for F/A-18C (and also widely repeated in the users' research) does not match the flame at least. We can agree on that. But I'm no SME on the topic. The nozzle starts to open sooner, the flame comes later... perhaps the first AB stage does not produce any visible flame? So sorry for jumping in with an explanation for a no-problem and let's wait for answers from experts.

The AB position on the throttle is different for various planes. The info I use is from this post: Both modules you mentioned use AB detent on 80% of the throttle. F/A-18C states 74 in the table - although I personally use 75% as I don't see any spike in the fuel flow there yet. Now you have two options: Create a different detent HW setup if you can - e.g. with STECS throttle. Change the throttle curve. I use a single bracket for all AB planes (at least for now), I set it up with F/A-18C by some luck, so I don't need any curve there. But for other planes (F-15C, F-5E, Mig-29) I need it. I switch the throttle to Slider (1), often need to check Invert (2) too, and set the Curvature (3), so that the Output (4) shows the number from the table above (-80 for F-15C 20/80). If it is just a bit less, then your max military power without AB is a tad lower, if it's more, than you're in AB before the detent. The curvature is not super granular, it probably can be set more exact in the Lua config file, but let's not go there. I'm happy with curvature. Note that planes with higher AB than your HW setup will have inverse curve (e.g. Mig-29 has positive 14 in my case). I set one throttle on dual engine, test it in cockpit, move it one more/less as I fancy, check that AB stage sound (prominent with F-15C) really goes when I move over the detent - and when I'm happy I set the other engine the same way. Double check it, just in case your HW is not totally symmetric. The question is WHERE should your HW detent be. One can push it towards the end a bit, but then you just "turn it on" and barely have enough room to enjoy all the stages (e.g. 5 in F-15C). I'm fine with 75% on my STECS (the detent physically starts around mark 80 and ends around mark 90, but 80 is not 80% because of the stop/idle detent). There is a small, but still sufficient room if I want to fine-tune the AB power. As a side note, I use detent for engine stop/idle and add just a bit of deadzone for that area, to be really idle with some tolerance.

Just open the miz file as a ZIP (e.g. Ctrl+PgDn in Total Commander, or rename it to *.zip and open normally). But your mission is fine, there is no Config directory, hence no View subdirectory either. It was just a guess why the behavior might have changed for you. But a bad guess this time. Did you have any problems with Bf-109 initial/default view before? I don't know/have the plane so I don't know whether it's one of those that is normally OK. I don't even know whether I should expect this initial-vs-default FOV problem to be totally consistent. It should not exist in the first place anyway. I don't know exactly how the Config/View might appear in the mission, but it is quite regular stuff in user files, and it's good to know that it is easy to fix with MIZ being just a ZIP file. Anyway, wrong lead, back to the topic.

Besides confusing "initial FOV" not matching the "default FOV" in many planes, there is a possibility, that your mission file contains saved views. This can further complicate any investigation - if you try it with such a mission. Most proper missions don't do that - as it breaks user's own snap views - but it happens often accidentally. I'm not sure exactly how (perhaps when you fly the mission in the editor?), but long story short - the best practice is NOT to include Config/View directory in the missions except for extremely specific reasons I can't imagine right now. Check your mission whether it's "view-free" not to distort your observations.

Yeah, I will use the press-n-hold action of course. It is not a big deal, I'll manage. When I talk about consistency, I definitely don't mean consistency between the actual planes, but more about the controls in-game. Unless one has a spare 3-way switch (I have only one at the moment and actually use it for gears, some of them also having 3-way lever) the question of how momentary presses translate to the actual action are relevant. And yes, press-n-hold is also a valid solution. But options are always good. It's good when you have a multiposition switch and can bind all the positions, have additional up/down/cycle bindings, etc. The strange inconsistency in F-86F is even when you compare the toggle action that holds in the position and skips the center position altogether. I tried to find something on the topic on the internet, but no luck at the moment. Some of them still fly (not sure about the variant though), so perhaps a direct question could help but I don't know the guys. With this I consider it solved as it is obviously by design. No prob, that's how it still works. There is a binding for the centre position, but you need it only if you use that Flaps Up/Down toggle that actually stays in those positions. Up and Down separate actions still work as described above - press-n-hold, returning after release or latching after a very short press.

I see whar you mean, but this than only works with a 3-way hotas switch properly. But it should work with buttons as well just as in any other module or any other non-spring switch. I understand the flap lever action now. Mig-15 or Yak-52 are similar in this way. But is the real F86 lever spring-loaded or not? It doesn't seem so. In that case the momentary buttons/keys should just change its position just as with any other switch or lever. 3-positions gear levers (L-39, Yak-52) work like this, so if the pilot can leave/latch the lever there it should be possible even with buttons as well. Edit: Or we should have binding alternatives for both styles. Latch and self-returning.

Thanks for the info, I started with Chuck's guide where I didn't see this mentioned, but indeed, this is mentioned in the manual on page 56. So that is good at least. Now I can also see the thread: How to use flaps correctly? However, from the real F86 snippets mentioned in that discussion, it doesn't look like the real F86 has this lever spring loaded in any way. So this control quirk is an arbitrary decision of the designers that is quite inconsistent with other planes with the multi-position flap lever (e.g. MiG-15, also from Belsimtek, although, granted, its 4-position lever works not quite the same). I can confirm that the short press works - but quite strangely, it is not totally consistent. It somehow depends on the animation: If the lever is in the centre position, the press must be very short. If the lever is in the opposite position, the press can be a bit longer - until the lever reaches the target position. If the lever is IN position already, the press moves it into the centre position. I'm not saying it's unusable - but it is definitely very counter-intuitive and totally different without the basis in the real plane. How can a short press of UP go UP and then the next press to the centre again? It eventually works as a toggle. With STOP position having a distinct binding, this seems to be a more broken system than a good one.

I have the following input setup - up/down actions are on the up/down positions of the STECS K-switch: The actions in the red act as momentary actions only - I have to press and HOLD the button to keep the lever in that position. This doesn't seem right at all when the Flaps Up/Down works as a toggle. To clarify - JOY_BTON55 is NOT a middle position "button" it is a different physical button on the K-switch (middle button). If I press the Flaps Up/Down action in the Controls table, it goes there and stays there after the release - as there is no other action triggered by the release of the switch. Flap Stop works as expected. So does the Flaps Up/Down toggle. I found a similar thread from 2015 - but I'm not sure how relevant that is.

First - the good news - it doesn't break the mission. It just makes the leader vehicle look like it's driven by a drunk or what. The pathing is a bit of on the taxiway - I guess the shape of the airfield changed since this mission was created or what: Looking in the editor: This more or less follows the ideal path, but I suspect the vehicle should follow the taxiway. My suspicion that the shape of the taxiway changed slightly also stems from the briefing image, but I guess this doesn't need to be reworked because of it:

While the search is typed in and the focus is on the input, it does not work indeed. I just click with the mouse anywhere on the table and then it works fine. If the binding is in the result, it will jump to it. If it is not, it does nothing. That's how it works normally and it's fine. You have to click on the table first, because otherwise key presses add to the search. Sure, HOTAS buttons COULD work, but that would not be consistent. Always focus on the table first.

This is easy to check in the game itself. If it works in the game then the stuck mod/shift is not a culprit. Shift especially can cause this, but I don't use that, only mods on keys/buttons that return to the off position.

I wish I knew what (if anything) I did, but I'm sure if I had known something then, I'd have written it - as I passionately hate "I made it work!" kind of self-replies. But I don't remember anything in particular and it just went away after another patch. Currently, I don't have such a problem with the latest OB/MT.

I was confused by my bindings for L-39 radar altimeter RALT knob setting (bug for r-alt warning sound) until I double-checked that LEFT means CW and RIGHT means CCW. This is totally counterintuitive - why the left-right is the direction of the bottom of the knob? I'd expect it to be the TOP of the knob. Red arrows show the current action that corresponds to the direction of the RALT bug, CCW (currently labelled - misleadingly - right) lowering the dangerous altitude indication: As it is a rotary, it would be better to use classic CW and CCW names - so I'd suggest that the current "left" is relabeled as "CW" and the current "right" as "CCW". Applies to both C and ZA variants.

Good to know this still doesn't work, I wanted to revisit the map with a trial, but it seems it would be a waste of time. I'm puzzled, how this issue is so hard to solve for ED. Is it just ignored, or it is so hard to trace the problem? Their shop shows confusing info when this map is trialled, I just don't understand how it can be so unreliable for so long.

This is not MiG-15 specific, I encountered the same issue with Yak-52, but I see it as a control bug. I have a 3-way switch for the gear lever with each position mapped. But when I flip the position quicker, the lever in the cockpit stays in the middle: Technically, the middle position "button' on the lever is generated by the "Boolean" function in VKB config software (virtual button when none of the up/down positions is on), but I this is of no consequence - as demonstrated by the very reliable action in the Controls itself. It's very responsive there. Also, I thought it had something to do with the "pulse" action of the buttons - as I have it set to 50ms pulse instead of press-n-hold to avoid undesirable cockpit changes when I forget the lever in the "wrong" position before the mission. I nearly stopped writing this report - but to my surprise, this bug is present with normal button action as well. I even tried to map up-neutral-down to keys 4-5-6 and went from 4 (up) through 5 (quickly) to 6 (and held it) - and the handle still stayed in the middle position. Simply put, until the plane doesn't do "its thing" in the middle position, it ignores any presses towards the extreme positions. This makes mapping the middle position on the lever itself counter-intuitive. I FEEL what I did. But the plane DIDN'T do it. There should be some kind of queuing for these actions. I the up/down comes after the neutral, it should be executed.