virgo47

Hello fellow Yak-52 friends. Now, when we finally have the Special Options for Aileron and Rudder Trim - how do you set them up? I tuned them around 2 and 19 for some kind of leveled flight close to the cruise parameters, testing it with the Caucasus Free Flight mission. But I'm curious about your opinions! Of course, no Auto Rudder, not sure how that one would affect it - but when it says Auto, I turn it off. (And yes, it took forever to get these trim options, but thanks ED for finally delivering this. No sarcasm meant, better later than not at all.)

Guys, recently I developed an air race script: https://github.com/virgo47/dcs-files/tree/main/mission-editing/scripts/air-race And also made a video about it: So perhaps that will serve the purpose. Mind you, this is a one-pass-race script, not a multi-lap script. Of course, I can do that one as well... but not at this moment. Just to keep things clear. But otherwise it works great as you don't need additional triggers for more racers, you can enter race however many times you want, etc.

Perhaps, but if it flies well and has two seats - it would be the first supersonic trainer. I didn't expect armament.

I love F-5, so what's not to love about Talon? I'm excited and looking forward to this mod!

Works fine on my end. I've just upgraded to 4.4.0 (Build 1) on the desktop and updated the Android app as well. No problems. I haven't done anything special with DCS-COINS.

I'm pretty sure ED didn't ask for this situation. So it's something bigger. Perhaps convince the other party from Russia and ask for transparency there. Let's give ED a break about this one, at least before they can share more. This is hardly similar to the RAZBAM dispute.

Interesting... I assumed just the names would be swapped - but this seems like it can also fix some reversed mouse switchology from here, I assume? I'll test it in the coming days... oh, scrap that! I'm starting DCS right now... @Flappie You started at the right end of the problem. I can confirm, that in the issue I linked in this comment, your patch fixes all the obvious bugs: 1) VHF COMM frequency mouse wheel behavior, 2) UHF freq. rotaries mouse wheel, 3) UHF volume even... Great! One more thing seems to need a fix after all: These actions have inverted names - but the clickable switchology seems OK. So this needs to be fixed as a downstream problem - I assume only in the lua files in Input directory (a few of them, yes). Because your fix corrects those in the cockpit - so that's the right thing to do. But half of your fixes seems to fortunately also fix the "inverted names", but this other set of names is really inverted. I hope I'm not confusing you any more then myself. tl;dr: Your fix is right as it is (and I approve it wholeheartedly), but a different set of bindings really has switched names.

And a simple Lua change would fix it. If I knew it is helpful, I'd do it, but if it just waited in a queue for another x years, it's a waste of time. ED could benefit from donated fixes for simple things perhaps. Sure, they'd have to be checked - but probably just visual code diff review would suffice for many annoying little things like this. @Flappie Would ED consider this for trivial stuff? I bet 9/10 fixes of this kind would be beneficial and the other 10% would be harmless and fixed in the next iteration or something. I know how much faster it is to review a change and say "looks good to me" than to think it through, explore, do it, and test.

I'd love to have more "curriculum" in DCS, but I accepted it is not here and I have to use out-of-game material. The topic at this moment seems a bit exhausted. It is what it is.

Isn't there a guy on the ground who wants to stop it - ideally just when the torque on the sling rope is 0, that is, when it's spinning fastest, and possibly swinging at the same time? I mean... nobody? Nobody wants to do that?! OK, I get it. It can happen, obviously. It happens to my yo-yo, why not to the cargo. I'm no aerodynamics expert, I can imagine that any asymmetry (or perhaps even symmetry) can lead to this. Does anybody know what they do with it in real life? Single rope sling loading is still done, right?

I don't have DCS on M.2, but I do have it on SSD. I'm less concerned about Caucasus, PG or Nevada as they are "just" 100GB total, so I can keep them just fine. But your idea of symlinks is interesting. I have just 32GB RAM, so perhaps that's why I always see barebone map after I switch from F10 map back to cockpit and it takes a second or two before it loads back again - for AF only. But the maps SHOULD perform reasonably even at 32G RAM. After all, they claim 16G is minimum, recommended is 32+ - which includes also 32GB, I believe.

Yesterday I tried (trialled) the map for the second time and I was a bit underwhelmed and the result was mixed. I tried F-5 free flight, checked the area around me - and while I have just RTX 3060, it looked nothing like in the videos, neither it was close to something like Syria. Up there, good. Down there, blur. Another thing I'm afraid of is just the sheer size. It's 140 GB already. How big will it be when fully detailed and finished with the third area? I may buy another bigger SSD, sure. But it seems a bit over the top. The map is different from other maps - in a good way, perhaps just Iraq is similar - but the mountains were still edgy, the terrain was even more blurry than the Caucasus and with the potential size on my disk, I'm just not sure about this. DCS is currently giving us too many space-heavy maps to even consider having them all. It seems we're heading to an age where players may be even more fragmented over various maps. This may not necessarily be bad, but it doesn't make meeting other guys online easier. On the other hand, I appreciate the diversity and details on this map (where details are). I guess sometimes when you want something new and progressive it may not be better than old fine-tuned stuff at first, so I'll be watching this later again. But right now Syria is much more bang for the buck, less space on the drive (and also more established, obviously, but that's not the point). Perhaps ED will find a way to make AF better and smaller at the same time eventually? For now, I uninstalled it completely, because I had to wait hours after the latest update. Obviously, I'm not saying it's a bad product, but it's definitely not for me with so little texture detail even in finished areas (I know, EA) and taking so much storage. It is an ambitious project, the map is huge, and the price is not necessarily a problem, but I do not feel like an "early adopter". Perhaps a laggard.

I have the same problem with this type of cargo (doesn't seem to affect other types) with UH-1H as well. So this seems to be this type of cargo related. I also have trouble putting it on the ground without at least some damage.

And I was afraid it's just me. Such a relief to hear that. Of course I'm practicing (Kursant or online with guys), but oftentimes I look at the instruments in horror, not feeling the plane, they all change so quickly. It's slowly getting better after a few years. But, after all, it is also a game. Sometimes I sweat it, sometimes I don't.

DCS training aircraft don't have so much 3rd party content, granted. There is just a single campaign for L-39. [EDIT C-101 has a built-in campaign as well.] But they mostly have some training missions. Otherwise I don't see much difference from other planes as I often hear that DCS is weak when it comes to the content (although there are many campaigns, but plains are covered unevenly, of course) and fun, so it's what you make of it. My point is that whatever DCS is, training planes are just as much fun for many of us. L-39 was the first full-fidelity module I bought and I love it. C-101 is a great module as well. Yak-52... ok, let's not talk about it - perhaps it will once be what was promised. But even that one, I often hop in and fly around. Trainers are fun. They perform somewhere between props and heavier jets, don't fall off the sky immediately when you go low on power during landing, they kinda glide nicely. I like that difference.

It is best to remove the baked in views completely. Otherwise you're forcing those views onto the player. When you want to adjust views later, it will not work for that kind of missions. If you share it later, people may be confused why it doesn't work. The views get baked in when you "prepare" the mission in the ME (kind of pre-fly it) - this does not happen when you just launch it from ME.

I love to see some L-39 love after a long time, especially the fix to the target Gunsight Target Distance regression introduced in the first 2.9 (Oct 2023). Are there any details about this other point?

Confirmed. The config file has the missing line and it works as expected. I wish ED could fix trivialities like this sooner than after nearly 16 months since the first report. That said, thanks Flappie for reporting and bumping it.

I'm waiting for the download to finish... already looking forward to check it for hours. Will let you know. (so excited to see it)

I totally understand the guy missed it, it was just with "normal". Everything else was bigger. But yeah, new releases are always there in not so big font. I'm so glad it wasn't me wrongly nitpicking this one.

I just wanted to put it into perspective... but now when I read the signature of the OP, then, granted, with 3090 the discussion is a bit different than in my case. Obviously, newer Zen is better, 3D cache is better, faster single core (turbo) is better. I yield.

I've got a good old Ryzen 7 3700X and it is never utilized above 50% with DCS. Unlike my rusty RTX 3060. So it's also about pairing. I'd say that CPU is less critical than a GPU, although on some multiplayer servers perhaps it may change. And of course, DCS on SSD.

That's why I prefer names of the actions, there is no confusion there. But I understand that it's easier to just write the key combo.

I always set Snap views for all my planes, one of them is the default view. In each plane and position, it is this one from Saved Games\<your-DCS>\Config\View\SnapViews.lua: [13] = {--default view viewAngle = 98.839722,--FOV viewAngleVertical= 66.589050,--VFOV I believe there were problems when the viewAngleVertical was not set, which happened between some updates. There were some cases when the zoom used for some planes at the start of the emission was not what was set there, but I haven't encountered the problem for some time. What I do - once is enough - I press View Center binding (check the keys, I don't use defaults anymore), then I reposition the camera and set the zoom I want, and after that press Save Cockpit Angles (this one is RAlt+Num0, BTW, I'm not sure what your action is for LAlt+Num0). This saves the current view as the last-used snap view - or, if you used View Center as the last one, the default view. I also manually copy the same thing to [14] for VR just to have it consistent. I believe that one is used not only for VR, but also for head-tracking. So, to save "default zoom" you actually need to set the default view. Questions: What was the name of the action you used to save the zoom? What was the plane? In the mission file (check it as a zip archive), are there any settings with baked in views? That's quite often the problem, even some ED's missions have that.

Not that close really... At least 800 km away and more.