virgo47

BTW: I've noticed that at least training missions #5 and #6 (radar ops and AA missiles) have the FARP in a better position:

Exactly. Many modules offer both separate ON + OFF bindings and additional toggle binding for switches. Does this require a separate "device_command" that is not implemented for MiG-21bis or is there a way to somehow "compose" such a functionality from existing ON + OFF bindings? I tried value_down -1 (inspired by how L-39 does it), but that didn't work.

For my respect to Rudel, who helped me a few times before already, and because my first post really was a bit harsher than I wanted, I'll just cover one issue here: Yes, it does, if you use Quaggle, preferably with OVGME, as I described here: However, there are still many outstanding issues. I like flying with MiG-21Bis, but the bindings are lacking a lot. Many switches are either toggle or separate on/off, but mostly not both. Some axis bindings lack inc/dec bindings (pipper brightness for instance, and yes, I actually use this in all other modules). This applies also to the commands you can dig out from the module's LUA files. There are missing commands, or I just can't find them with my skill, but I suspect the first. Even example files for Quaggle injector show only commands setting some values to concrete values, but no toggle or inc/dec actions for those. And then there are some lazy controls like RSBN channels that are easier/faster to mouse click than to bother with any bindings (again, I use this happily on L-39). I believe these are usability bugs. We can call them missing features, but that doesn't change the result. I still understand that module needs some minimal maintenance even if nothing changes, just because DCS itself changes, and we don't see that kind of work, but then we also don't know how much of work that really is. I like that Magnitude 3 LLC have a public bug tracker now, but we will see how that helps.

I found this when googling "Missione editor dictionary cleanup" after noticing the same problem. Perhaps not a biggie, but definitely making a programmer in me uneasy. I experimented just a little with the information that the keys all start with DictKey_... and when I unzip the mission to an empty tmp directory, I can then run the following bash command: grep -r DictKey_ --exclude=dictionary | sed -e 's|^.*["'\'']\(DictKey_[^"'\'']*\).*$|\1|g' This ignores the directory files and assumes the DictKey_ strings are in double or single quotes (Lua strings, ME seems to use only ", but scripts can use ' as well). This is just a first step, as you still need to go through the dictionary file(s). Based on this I created the attached bash script, place it out of the extracted mission directory, but run it from there (current directory is in the extracted mission folder) - example output: $ /h/work/.../scripts/cleanup_dictionaries.sh Used keys: DictKey_descriptionBlueTask_3 DictKey_descriptionNeutralsTask_4 DictKey_descriptionRedTask_2 DictKey_descriptionText_1 DictKey_sortie_5 Processing l10n/DEFAULT/dictionary Removing: ["DictKey_ActionText_10"] = "L-39 is doing it... maybe!", Removing: ["DictKey_ActionText_6"] = "TEST #1", Removing: ["DictKey_ActionText_7"] = "TEST #2", Removing: ["DictKey_ActionText_18"] = "", Removing: ["DictKey_ActionText_13"] = "Test G2", Removing: ["DictKey_ActionText_16"] = "Alive once!", Removing: ["DictKey_ActionText_14"] = "xxx", Removing: ["DictKey_ActionText_9"] = "", Removing: ["DictKey_ActionText_11"] = "Test G1", Removing: ["DictKey_ActionText_8"] = "TEST #3 (Doesn't make sense!)", Removing: ["DictKey_ActionText_15"] = "Alive", Removing: ["DictKey_ActionText_17"] = "", DONE After this, I renamed dictionary.fixed to dictionary, overwriting the original (this also can be automated, if you feel brave). This version can be run repeatedly without changing the dictionary file. If you uncomment the two mv commands after the done < $dictfile line, it will do it for you, but then it overwrites the bak file the second time you run it. Obviously: TRY AT YOUR OWN RISK I haven't tested it on any complex missions. After the process, zip the content of the mission directory into a new file (without the directory itself), try to open it in ME, check it, resave it (DCS zips differently than my tool - although that is probably not a problem) and try to play it. If it works, good for you. cleanup_dictionaries.sh

I played the Landing training mission and followed the final "taxi practice" to my parking spot. But the mission starts in the air and the exact spot is not totally clear. I parked nicely next to the MiG-21, I was aligned with it, but I was obviously not triggering a zone I was supposed to. So I went to the ME to see what was going on. I went from behind, somewhere between "04" and "05" in the picture and stopped just before triggering the zone. The zone could be just a bit bigger, the existing heading condition should cover any false positives. Perhaps the zone was OK on an older version of the map, I don't know. Also, this mission has that FARP that should be moved if it can't be removed. As a side note, I like the tone of these other missions (2-4) in comparison to the first training mission. I was afraid all the missions would be that sarcastic and I'm glad it's not so, which is much better.

I have the latest OB and tried the Su-25T training missions for CCIP and CCRP and the pipper behaved correctly. Do you have any mods activated? The only thing I've noticed is that in the CCIP training mission, I select A2G mode as instructed, but after the ripple interval and quantity adjustments when the line starting with "Those are the basics..." ending with "Press the space bar to unpause the mission", I'm back to the navigation mode and I have the course circle instead of the pipper. But this doesn't seem to be the same issue you described (and not that serious either, just confusing). I wanted to confirm it, but it works fine on my end.

I'm going through a user's mission for the cold start on Godauta, with the NDB 395.00 and code XC. This NDB is in the map sector FH27 (or FH2873 if zoomed in all the way). I checked the morse code of the NDB of the Godauta - which should be the morse code for XC (callsign of the NDB). But I was surprised that the morse code of the sector (morse code for FH27) was heard instead. I don't think various planes should receive different Morse codes for the same NDB, so I assume this is a bug. Also, the loop of the NDB is quite fast (compared to other planes) - unless I'm misled by the longer transmission of the (longer) code itself.

I also noticed this. I use encoders for RSBN channels in other planes with the system, but this doesn't work well in MiG-21, as it requires a long press time to do the tick - this results in many clicks of the encoder to change a channel by one. I found some custom commands using bigger value_pressed value, but this results in the same lazy behavior, just with different jump (e.g. 10 channels). This makes only the mouse a viable solution for fast clicking to the channel buttons. Would it be possible to make it encoder-friendly? I don't like the lazy feeling on the buttons/keys either, so it should not make that experience worse.

This is perhaps a more general question, but I don't know where to ask it - and as I'm trying to solve MiG-21 Radio squelch on/off binding, I'll ask here. I have Squech on and off commands available for binding: {cockpit_device_id = devices.RADIO, down = device_commands.Squelch, value_down = 0, name = _('Squelch Off'), category = _('Radio Communications')}, {cockpit_device_id = devices.RADIO, down = device_commands.Squelch, value_down = 1, name = _('Squelch On'), category = _('Radio Communications')}, There is no obvious on/off toggle for binding. I tried to search for something about this topic, but the results were quite noisy, mostly related to the "toggle switch" on some joysticks and how to deal with them - but that's not related. Is there a way how to construct a binding for toggle? Is it some different value or something else? Or is it simply not provided by the module coding?

Not a fix, but a workaround without the need to modify the installation directory directly: Well, actually, there is a mod, so it touches the installation directory, but OVGME+Quaggles' Command Injector makes this all much easier now - and after that you only add to the Saved Games, so it's much cleaner (no edit of the Mod in DCS install anymore).

Great! BTW: it probably goes over multiple missions, I encountered it in the 3rd one as well (although there it is merely an aesthetic problem). Are you aware of that?

Thanks to @Rudel_chw and his gentle nudge I found a reasonable solution/workaround: Install https://github.com/iquercorb/OpenModMan (newer mod manager by the same author as OvGME). https://wiki.hoggitworld.com/view/OVGME if you don't have it (I didn't) for better management of mods that go to your DCS installation directory. I checked this video on why and how, there are probably others, but it is quite simple and useful. Good value proposition. It's not strictly necessary to use mod manager, but it's a good idea for cleaner mod installation and uninstallation (e.g. before DCS updates). Download https://github.com/Quaggles/dcs-input-command-injector mod, put it into the "mods" dir you created for OpenModMan and enable it. The rest happens in your Saved Games/<dcs> directory - which is a great thing. Create InputCommands\MiG-21bis\Input\MiG-21\mouse directory there. The first part (InputCommands) is the root of the "patches" that Quaggles input injector uses, the rest is the structure that copies the Input file structure under <dcs-installation>\Mods\aircraft. Copy the provided default.lua there. I added just a few commands I wanted, but you can copy anything from <dcs-install>\Mods\aircraft\MIG-21bis\Input\MiG-21\keyboard\default.lua - assuming the action is available for the keyboard. When copying, remove the binding (combos) part from the line, e.g. from: {combos={{key='NumEnter'}},down=iCommandViewAngleDefault,name=_('Zoom normal'),category=_('View')}, make {down=iCommandViewAngleDefault,name=_('Zoom normal'),category=_('View')}, It's OK to leave the trailing comma, don't worry. Example for clickable cockpit command: {down = iCommandCockpitClickModeOnOff, name = _('Mouse cursor cockpit mode'), category = {_('General'), _('Custom')}}, There are even projects providing some bindings, e.g. https://github.com/Munkwolf/dcs-community-keybinds/tree/main/InputCommands, but there is not much for MiG-21 mouse in this case. The provided file DOES NOT assign the actions to the mouse yet, although it can be done as well (providing the proper combos, I guess). However, now you can assign it in the DCS. The cell in the mouse column is enabled and can be assigned. Works very well and it's not such a hassle as I'd expect. On a side note, I was surprised that some modules (e.g. L-39) don't have any defaults for the mouse in the DCS installation directory, yet it works somehow. This is probably a mystery of a different implementation of those modules. default.lua

First an apology for the overly dark and not fair assessment. I play mostly a bit in the evening, mostly single player, and I like to go through the single player content. That is what affects the experience a lot. I've heard MiG-21 in the sky is a good module and I'm looking forward to get there. I understand that keeping up with the DCS updates is difficult. If the plane is done, I don't want new features or even variants of the plane. Even if I wish something, I don't feel entitled to that and don't judge based on that. I've heard some devs do it, which is great, but I'm a different kind of SW developer too, so I understand the burden and priorities, etc. What bothers me most are the bugs... and yes, also missing binding capabilities. Not implemented there is "prohibited" on my end. That said... Thanks for the tip. I'll check those lua fixes you mention, although I don't understand why I have to do it. But I will, because I want the mouse to be consistent across modules. Nice mission and you're right. Of course, I can't do missions like these for a new plane, where I struggle with buggy training missions instead. I took the wrong path. In general, I know you do a lot for the community, I'm not able to on that level, I at least report bugs. And I don't expect them to be fixed anytime soon - although sometimes I'm surprised. Recently a few of the reported bugs in a few modules I considered frozen got fixed. I appreciate when that happens. To clarify a bit - I didn't talk about MiG-21 here necessarily as I barely started with it, it was more about CE2. However, the most recent change log contained: "Added 3 customizable mouse inputs: Comm menu, Zoom in slow, Zoom out slow" for both CE2 and MiG-21, so... there is still hope. I don't want to comment on the module price, but when I buy something now, I have no idea where it will be in 10 years. I haven't been enjoying the module for 10 years yet. After 10 years I'd consider the cost amortized, I guess. As for my abandonware remark, I felt that way about NS430 or Yak-52 (very little development for an early access module, although there were at least some bug fixes lately, so again, there is hope). I admit CE2 is not there yet and I hope it will not be. I appreciate your response and thank you for the information. And again, I'm sorry about the outburst.

I tried the second training mission and followed the taxi instructions only to encounter this obstacle: Now I'm stuck in the grass, not even max power helps me.

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.