virgo47

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.

Syria is OK, but strangely, maps have very inconsistent grids and their colors. In Caucasus this grid is blue, in Syria it's black. Then there is LL grid that is black in Caucasus - and in Syria it toggles country borders instead.

I disagree. Having both toggle and separate open/close actions is great. I wish all the modules had all the options for all the controls. Now back to that deblock - it really is not to be used at all. So that one is even more useless than various options for covers. However, if you absolutely need it, it can be added by this line: {cockpit_device_id = devices.WEAPON_SYSTEM, down = device_commands.Button_77, up = device_commands.Button_77, value_down = 1, value_up = 0, name = _('Deblock Guns'), category = {_('Armament Control Panel'), _('Only Front Cockpit'), _('Custom, Front Cockpit')}}, Not to mess with the installation folder, I can only recommend Quaggle's command injector for this kind of extensions: Then you just add this into a file InputCommands\L-39C\Input\L-39ZA\keyboard\default.lua under your Saved Games DCS directory and you're done.

Please, provide some material - track file, screenshot of your bindings. You're not giving us anything we can act upon. I just tested the same training mission, when it started, I checked my bindings (these are NOT the default ones BTW): I got back to the mission, pressed THROTTLE - IDLE key combo, worked fine. Now I can move the throttle with axis. Freely. If I use THROTTLE - STOP (at the bottom of the throttle), I can't move the throttle anymore. It just works. There are SOME issues with throttle to STOP, but only in some missions and these are caused by the rear pilot blocking the throttle movement to stop. That's another problem, I believe it is unrelated to the one you're describing. But we NEED a track file. Otherwise it's just "it doesn't work". And no one can help you. There is nothing to analyze. I understand it can be frustrating when something doesn't work - and there may be reasons why it doesn't work just for you. E.g. mods sometimes do funny things. But you have to provide some material for analysis.

Quite a minor thing I encountered only when flying low in a helicopter: It is located here:

Is it even physically possible? I assume they have stops, or not? The thing is, that rotary encoders only deliver inc/dec short "presses" (very short for some applications, but OK for others). The defining thing about encoders is that you can turn it infinitely in one direction, and they do not sync with the cockpit as an axis would (depending on one setting). So rotaries are always relative. These defining features are good for some applications and totally inappropriate for others. But encoders with stops would likely be "the worst of both worlds". What is your application for it?

The track is attached, here is a video from it: This time I started in the air and the first "mode" was something like a landing mode - next waypoint cycled through many points, I assume the aerodromes. After (1) Navigation mode change, I could cycle only between WPs 0 (behind me), 1 and 2 (shown in the map at the start of the video). There is no function for Previous waypoint. There is no way to change mode further, it will stay stuck in this WP mode. Again, I have no idea what the intention was, it's a strange version of FC navigation (with broken modes cycle and previous waypoint). If it was intended, the Previous waypoint binding should be fixed, and the modes should be able to cycle between aerodromes and WPs. That would be nice. But how to indicate it? Or should there be no navigation at all? f5e-fc-next-waypoint-stuff.trk

Please, ED, this really is ridiculous. I hate changing the files from the installation directory, but I also added that line mentioned above: elements["pnt_107"] = default_axis (_("ASP-3NMU Gunsight Target Distance") ,devices.ASP_3NM, device_commands.Button_2 , 107, 0.0, 0.1 , true, false, false, {135,45}, {135,10}) Fixed. Please. Do it for us. Making a personal "mod" for this is ridiculous.

And what is the future? I see people complaining about not knowing where it will go. Whether the modding will get harder, etc. Any stand on that?

Thanks for the info, this now makes more sense. I'm still a bit unsure about this sentence though, sorry for bothering you with one more question. So in a real plane - with stabilization mode enabled, even with some side pressure on the stick - if I suddenly let it go, it would stabilize? (In various ways depending on other roll/pitch params, of course.) The reason I ask is, I expect there was some backpressure from the stick itself depending on what the plane was doing at the moment. It is kinda unique and unlike various stabilization modes in newer planes, it's a really interesting system.

I was surprised and joyful to see it. It really works as advertised now. Great news!

Celebrate good times, come on! Very nice to see this fix, thanks guys.

When FC F-5 is started hot on TCN-enabled aerodrome, its TCN morse code is beeping, but there is no way to turn it off. This is probably some feature spill from the full fidelity F-5 which should not be there. Mentioned previously right after the FC2024 release here: This is still a problem after the latest 2025-01-20 patch.

A solid start to 2025 - plenty of fixes! Thanks. Pros: CE2 fuel display fixed? I'm going to check that ASAP. Cons: L-39 cockpit animations for target distance (throttle rotate and scale on the sight) broken with the first 2.9 patch still not fixed. But there still is hope. Fixes are good.

With the currently unknown status of the RBvED dispute, anyone's guess is as good as mine. Full-fidelity F-15C implies, for many, F-15E is on the side-track for some time if not for good... But back to the topic. I'm just experimenting with MiG-19, I wanted to compare it with MiG-21. I somewhat enjoy both of them, but I have a mental block when controls are missing - and the block is proportional to the number of controls missing. I learned about Quaggle's Command Injector (thanks to Rudel_chw) and it's part of my workflow now, so it took me just about an hour to get the stuff I normally always use with the keyboard (Barometric altimeter setting, course, etc.). All these settings are already possible; they are just not made available. Community figured it out already: https://github.com/Munkwolf/dcs-community-keybinds/blob/main/InputCommands/MiG-19P/Input/MiG-19P/keyboard/default.lua Now there are two levels, as I see it: Not adding these things into the default configs (hence forcing us to use mods, or worse, "mod" it ourselves) is kinda a no-brainer. RAZBAM could have done it anytime, with no effort at all. Could it accidentally introduce some bug (in new bindings only, mind you)? Possibly. But that's a risk anyone here would gladly take. Bugs is the name of the game already. The harder part is to provide really new bindings. If the switch gives me ON and OFF bindings, I have no idea whether I can mod it somehow to work as a trigger. (I haven't found that yet.) You can add "ON else OFF" and similar stuff, that's possible, but toggle? Now. The same for 3-pos or more switches and other controls. If there are just concrete position bindings, I have no idea how to add go/cycle up/down. And the other way around - if there are only toggles and up/down/cycle commands, I believe there is no way to transform them into concrete controls. I'm not talking about a situation when the dev provides only up/down/cycle stuff, but the commands for precise positions are there and you can add them (scenario 1). I'm talking about the situation when the only available command is toggle, for instance. Command for concrete settings with values is simply not available. I may be wrong about all the details in the second point because DCS is complex. Also, some of the older modules have very different scripting styles compared to newer modules - which makes it more difficult. But the whole idea of "clickable-only cockpit" (hyperbole, of course) - when you MUST click, not just CAN click - without any binds whatsoever for some elements... that is very frustrating in any module. Why are virtually half of the modules insufficient in this area, I have no idea. Providing controls for existing elements should be one of the easiest parts when developing the module. It could even be generated from a good authoritative source of truth - which would also help avoiding situations when the tooltip says something completely different than the binding, etc.