virgo47

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.

Touch Portal 4.0 got out recently and it has a few interesting improvements that can be handy for multi-page "pages" (or panels, let's say). It can export multiple pages at once and on import it asks what to do with conflicting value ids (unfortunately, for now it asks for each of them, instead of something like "ignore/reuse for all"). But it's not all bells and whistles. While built-in actions seem to work, COINS action seems to not work properly - as it is not possible to drag'n'drop them into On Pressed/On Event canvases anymore. Also, existing actions don't show the value as a select box anymore: Funny that "everything works" - but nothing can be changed. I asked on the TP Discord as well, but I have no info yet. Not sure whether the plugin needs to be rebuilt for 4.0 or what. I'll let you know when/if TP guy(s) tell me more.

I found this nearly furious about "multiplayer only MiG-15 canopy close bug"... and it turned out I just activated the airconditioning (right-hand valve) before the canopy. Silly me. It's great this thread exists.

When the Taxi training mission starts, the MiG-15 plane is on the edge of the concrete and grass - I believe it also affects the initial required RPM for taxiing: Cockpit view: And the map - with some strange lines: The rest of the mission is OK, the pathing is fine, no misalignments visible and the final parking spot is not on the edge, but more normal.

I can confirm the markers sounding as I land, good fix (the range is higher, but that is another problem for another OB, we hope ;-)) and I could also follow the car which is pathed properly and - this was the first time I finished the mission! It's great to see also this kind of fixes for vintage modules. Thank you very much for your care!

If you mean Il-76, then look at the manual Su-33 from page 139 on. Just a few snippets: This is about your distance from the tanker - obviously, green is good. Additional signals are: No idea about the S-3.

I've just had a similar problem. Landed the Su-33 in the training mission and wanted to see it from the outside. No luck, the track replay didn't budge. I restarted the game, loaded the same track and... F2 started to work. Annoying. Something gets stuck when the track is saved and replayed in the same DCS session. Using any of the views from the actual mission is just replayed as well, it does not allow subsequent changes in the view. (Also, avoid Fly Again button if you want reliable track, it seems to remember the first flight. Always go back to the mission selection and start the mission afresh. But that's another story.)

My question exactly. I was surprised the NWS on Su-33 works with the switch off/closed... but the label says "откл(ючить) упр(авление) колесом" which is "disable wheel steering" (more or less). So yes, the switch in Su-33 seems to be there to DISABLE it. Hence ON for disable. Of course, this is just my deduction, no real experience with Su-33.

Great! If needed I can add more info, as I eventually grabbed MiG-15 "as-is" just days later in that incredible sale back then.

That's how I understand it too, thanks. Talking about how Caucasus-specific markers are... I don't know whether Western planes have anything similar, but F-15C makes no sound over the same beacons, so I guess not. I guess it's an Eastern standard helping with landing, on Nevada and PG map there are no NDBs and no markers (so it seems). There are some in Syria, though. You can clearly hear the marker tone when landing to Damascus from the east (over the NDB).

Technically, I'm not sure how the marker signal is triggered - but if I understand the plane/manual correctly, it is a different receiver (MRP-56P), separate from (and/or additional to) NDB system. Marker transmitters just happen to be placed with the outer/inner NDB beacons. If both are available, they both send a sound, just different. Demonstration video: That said, I haven't heard a marker on the ground yet - but this may be a concrete NDB/marker/aerodrome thing.

Ouch, my bad. I didn't manage to read the Su-27 manual that much. I'm behind with all the manuals despite trying hard. So the line is actually right, I just looked at all the wrong places. Sorry and thanks!

BTW: Su-25T mission starts in the evening 7:45:00 on 14/02/2012, it's not totally dark, but it works really well. Of course, the ideal mission would: have the gates more as a guide with "close enough" working just fine voicovers could be cut by the action mentioned at the end (space, A-G mode, etc.) But that's probably unrealistic. About the K mentioned for full cannon, the line is similar, but not identical to the Su-25T mission. Su-25T has this weapon status panel: I'm not sure whether Su-27 should indicate it as well and it is some kind of regress, but the line says so - except the status panel is left from HDD, not HUD.