virgo47

I got here from a completely wrong reasons. I had "old" DimOn frequency charts (which are absolutely great, of course!) and Kola update changed the frequencies. I tried L-39 instant action missions, they seem to be designed with old frequencies, which only confirmed my wrong assumptions there is something wrong with ATC itself. The truth is much simpler: Frequencies changed, and ATC seems to work. And L-39 has no preset set for the aerodrome where the instant action mission happens (previously #1 was set OK). That's not to say there is no ATC issue, I'm just saying to use the right frequency charts before reporting one.

I just copied a bunch of planes and helos and ground units from the Caucasus using the multiselect tool, Ctrl+C, loading Kola, paste... took some time (5-10s) but it pasted it there. Of course, an experience of one doesn't mean general availability. But at least I got lucky.

Yeah, I've got ecstatic about that one when I saw it. And yes, it is fixed for SP missions. Great news. Sorry, @cfrag for hijacking your thread for "a while", not to diminish this success for SP, but gates in MP, that would be another level for sure.

Two in a row! Another update with tons of fixes and again with one I sought after for some time. The helper gates are now growing again! (The next one, that is.) It would be fantastic if delivered as soon as the regress was discovered (after introducing MT), but I'm grateful for this anyway. Thanks for the fix. This actually fixes a lot of training missions, especially the ones that mention the bigger gates. (There is still an argument that the next gate should have a different colour instead/or in addition to the bigger gate and a colour, but this fix gets us at least to the state we had before.) I like and approve of this patch. (And going to fix my signature again.)

This is funny (I'd consider it a bug, as in "extremely unexpected behaviour"), but if I replaced it with RWin+R, I guess I'm safe... right? EDIT: What other combinations are potentially dangerous? UI layer only?

It's definitely easier to fly from home - but I've actually heard a true story of a guy who was a back-seater in some real-life plane he flew in a simulator previously. When he got the plane (in the air of course), he yanked the stick at first, overcontrolling the plane at first - he was then surprised how easy it was to move compared to his home rig. So I guess it depends.

DCS is often about passion and suffering - but this seems to be over the top. I don't make custom liveries, but I like them. I hope ED will take this issue more seriously. I hope they can figure out the more reasonable balance between protecting their IP and supporting (or at least not alienating) their community.

Talisman, we're afraid to organize races more often so you have at least some free time!

All you need is skill and/or luck - because you can join the event even with the free TF-51D! The free practice is already going on, so do not hesitate.

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.