virgo47

What is the content of that dir where you run the command? (Use DIR command to see it.) If there is Munt.G_DCS-COINS sub-folder, go there (cd Munt.G_DCS-COINS) and try there again. That DCS-COINS.exe is there.

I can confirm the fix for this one, I had no problem finishing the mission this time. Thanks!

What does it mean? Is the purpose negated now? Does the option even do anything? I tried to find something about it, page 26 in the manual is obviously very old screenshot and doesn't cover it. Forum reports are various, some implying it perhaps doesn't do anything?

To clarify - I use no Reshade or anything - and it also seems to be affected by lighting conditions. I'm playing another training mission that starts with the rain and the same panel looks much better this time. Although some "ghosting" like stuff still appears it is much less annoying and very subtle this time. This picture is quite zoomed in - which makes it more obvious (and worse), but it's definitely more 3D this time and less about "sharpening" effect. I still think it looks artificial, but I just wanted to clarify why it may not be as obvious. It's light-dependent. (Some extreme bump mapping, perhaps?)

Thanks for the response. The problem with current execution is not only realism - but the resulting effect looks more like TV ghosting than anything realistic. Or like an outline in games such as Borderlands. It's really ugly.

My first example seems to be a very strong manifestation of some "engine" thing that can be seen also in good weather. Just today, without actually thinking of this problem, this is what I noticed when I was looking around the airport with a bit of zoom out: You may not see it at first, but it's pretty obvious when you accidentally focus and zoom at it - and it also depends on the clouds around the "seams". Instead of highlighting the lines I made circles around the points where three lines (seams) connect plus a few arrows to point out one of the seams. I have no idea whether this is a new phenomenon, but I haven't encountered it before the fog update (which I generally like except for the fog being global height, but hopefully they will fix that as well, but it may be completely unrelated).

Just to clarify - what is the source of your picture? Is it a real plane, just zoomed in? (Because I see some pixelation, I'm not sure.)

I generally like the new F-5 cockpit, but there was something that was bothering me about it and today I found out what it is. It seems like the textures are over-sharpened (or whatever else processing with similar effect) - especially around texts. I assume the text has some texture, perhaps it's etched or what, but look at it: The black contour lines around the text are clearly visible. And close up: This is even worse, it looks more like a cartoonish game. Many elements don't seem to suffer from this effect. E.g. the knobs seem to be OK, pedals are also fine, but the text is funny with the outlines. What do you think?

That's what I'm reporting - skipped triggers in the training mission for MB-339. It has nothing to do with server or MP, so no, I haven't tried. The training mission is faulty.

Recently, I was involved in scripting duties for a racing mission. You can try these missions online if you check "Black Angels" or "AirRace" in the server list - a helicopter and a warbird flavour is available. (Here you can also get the missions from your track file, but perhaps we will have a link as well.) Originally, the mission was full of triggers for each zone (there is a racing zone, kill zones and check zones you have to pass) and each player and it was also difficult to make it work for all clients independently. Imagine adding a new racer unit to a mission and setting all the triggers right. I said: "Hey, I can script a bit in Lua, I'll try to do a script for all these duties." The result is published here: https://github.com/virgo47/dcs-files/tree/main/mission-editing/scripts/air-race It supports both single and multi player, multiple players racing at the same time, and many other features. When you need a new racer, just add a group with a known (configurable) prefix. Add new killzones at will (with some prefix), or more checkzones that need to be passed. It also has a sub-second approximation, although the races script loop runs only once a second. And restart "voting". Altitude checks. Option to either kill unit or just softly disqualify it if it's out of bounds. And more. And I talk about all this in the following video: Merry Christmas to everyone and all the best to the New year!

This encryption is wrong on so many levels... The modding community is a strong point for DCS. Does it mean ED now doesn't care about it? Do they hide something? I've heard that the cockpit is virtually the same as before and doesn't warrant all those thousands of hours ED claims. I don't know, and ED does everything so we don't know. Many things for control tweaking are easier to discover in the Model Viewer. I just don't get it. Will we have some Model Viewer 3 supporting encrypted modules, or will DCS close more and more for us? Will we soon get to the point where we are not able to add the bindings that are missing in the modules (pick any)? Just extrapolating...

I was playing a MB-339 wet takeoff mission and decided to go up after the takeoff - and to my surprise I got this on the edge of the clouds: This is with a maximum zoom-out, but ht was pretty obvious, it looked like some sci-fi shield thing.

After a while, probably the first time after a few patches I got into an A2A mission, training mission. There was an Il-76 5 km ahead of me, and I had serious troubles to find it in the sights with zoom. It was partially a color/lighting thing, but I can't believe in real life I'd not see such a big thing when I looked at it directly. No simulator will ever be 100% realistic in this matter - the only question is how well it translates the reality to a screen (in my case 1440p). 2D screen is especially challenging as there is no stereoscopy, so if the colors blend, we're screwed. Of course, VR has its own set of challenges, there is a resolution-vs-visibility discussion for monitors, etc. It's not an easy problem. It is a matter of practice as well, especially when it comes to "spot" a moving dot. But when there is no dot to see, no shimmer, no movement, nothing, not even when you look straight at it, it's objectively not good.

It is described on the linked User file page: The panel default values are prepared for the cold setup, use the auxiliary RESET button in the top row to switch the panel switches to the "hot" setup. This does not change anything in DCS, only the Touch Portal button states. The thing is that when you enter the cockpit, not all values are sent to the DCS-BIOS->COINS->TouchPortal, so some of the buttons are stale. This RESET button simply flips between typical hot and cold touch portal presets - not for all buttons, only the typical ones (e.g. generator, battery, etc.). Most typical usage is to tap it once when you enter a hot/airborne aircraft - which is Reset Buttons to HOT.

Those profiles are called "diff" for a reason. If something changes in the base files in the installation directory, you can get a new binding or lose one that was default and you didn't change it, etc. That's why these profiles (diffs) have also "remove" instructions. I don't quite understand why we don't have absolute/complete control profiles instead.

Whenever I engage any of these bindings: ...the camera starts clicking, just like when I press the first stage of the trigger. I have to press the trigger (first stage) and release it to stop the action. Releasing these Toggle actions doesn't stop the camera, nor using any other one. Also, the NOSE/TAIL trigger does NOT trigger between up and middle position, but between top and bottom position. Please, devs, prioritize the bindings a bit more, currently they are in an aweful state. Many of them missing (and many options missing, such as cycle, toggle vs bindings for each state, etc.) and sometimes a bug like this crops up.

I've downloaded this module afresh with DCS 2.9.10.3948 (for trial) and I have the same issue. I uninstalled all the mods and restarted the game - the same problem:

I'm going through the rocket and following training missions and there are many trigger bugs that cause some messages to be skipped/cut in a quick succession, for example (this is from the gun pods mission): These two messages appear at once, the second displacing the first one. Additionally, in the previous mission (rocket pods), I needed to rotate the leftmost depression thingie, if I rotated the middle one (to show 020 - which x10 is 0200 and the pipper is in the right position) it was not accepted by the mission and it didn't progress. These missions are generally very short, so I'd recommend reviewing them by the developers as there are more discrepancies like this.

I love trainers, I've got L-39 and C-101 - both great modules - and Yak-52... not sure what to say about that one (virtually no love from ED right now). I'd consider buying MB-339, even though I like L-39 looks more but I like that you can unmount the wingtip tanks on this one. It's a strange plane to me, but so is any trainer to any random guy I guess. I've seen it's predecessor (MB-326) in Catania roundabout and that one reminded me L-29 Delfin (Dolphin) a bit - MB-339 is a bit in the middle, as it definitely doesn't look as a more modern plane than L-39 Albatros - but it is. And of course, it's western style, more like C-101 than L-39. But I just don't know right now. I expect certain level of control flexibility on both the bindings and clickable cockpit - yet MB-339 is somewhat subpar in both aspects. E.g. flap lever is not clickable, it has some bindings - but no bindings for each position (3 of them). Many things are only clickable with no bindings. I hope this gets better - but only if there is a commitment to do so. I tried to overcome some of these limitations with Quaggles control injector, but I failed - this was the first module that I couldn't enhance easily with Quaggles, which was a downer. I have no idea, how IFE sees the module, whather it pays off or not (I wish it does)... it would be great to at least know what the future of trainers is. ED seems to ignore its last attempt (Yak-52) altogether, but I hope this doesn't happen to MB-339. It has a lot of flexibility (in this category). I don't quite like how it flies, it swings like a helicopter when I roll it - but I get it if it's realistic (L-39 is way more snappy). I like the tutorials, although some should be extended, but I appreciate the voiceover. I believe it has a lot of effort put into it already and I guess only a bit is missing. At least those are my first impressions after a busy week. Seeing fixes in many recent 2.9.x patches gives me hope that many of these things will get fixed. Not all of them have to, of course. I'm looking forward to the future and I'll review the module as soon as possible again.

No prob, if you missed some color/position combinations, just let me know. It's easy for me to add more, I just didn't create it all, only as needed.

Hello, Touch Portal and DCS-COINS friends! After some delay, I finally finished (the first version of) my UH-1H Dashboard: You can get it here: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3342493/ The "source" files are also available in this repo: https://github.com/virgo47/dcs-files/tree/main/touch-portal-panels This is a single-page dashboard offering a log of functionality, virtually complete overhead console controls, most important weapon/flares stuff, radios, engine controls, and some gauges as number indicators.

I'm surprised how many bindings seem to be missing - altimeter pressure inc/dec, depression thumb controls, sight brightness inc/dec, taxi/landing lights are only toggle, no 3 distinct positions (e.g. for k-switches on STECS)... I was nicely surprised by this module at first, the manual started very well, training missions are nicely voiced, but bindings are a weaker part of the module and so far I struggle how to add missing stuff with Quaggle. Inspired by the Macro_sequencies.lua: push_start_command(1.2, {device = devices.SWITCHES, action = TaxiLandingLight, value = -1.0, message = _("TAXI/LANDING Light Switch - TAXI"), message_timeout = short_message_timeout}) I tried to add this under Saved Games dcs folder - InputCommands\MB-339\Input\MB-339A\joystick\default.lua - this copies the structure from the installation directory: {cockpit_device_id = devices.SWITCHES, down = TaxiLandingLight, value_down = 0, name = _('TAXI/LANDING Light Switch - OFF'), category = {_('Anti-Ice System'), _('Custom')}}, But nothing happened - the command was not added to the Controls options. I have other Quaggle stuff that works, so either I'm doing something wrong or the module does something differently. I even tried to just copy a line from joystick/default.lua from the module with a different name, but it doesn't work - the name does not appear.

Then it doesn't seem to do anything. I tried elevator trim -100 and +100 and it took 7-8 seconds to go from extreme to extreme in any of the settings. But yeah, if it affects that thing (speed of the trim change when the trim hat button is pressed) it will be exactly what is missing (and often asked for) in many modules.

I'm just trialling the module, the first impressions are very good - I like how special options and mission editor specific stuff are right at the front of the manual. But... does the trim sensitivity do something at this moment? And what will it do, if it doesn't? The manual doesn't make it clear - I'd assume it changes how fast the trim is changed by the trim hat - which would be a game-changer and a recipe how it should be done in DCS in general! But the manual doesn't make it clear. The only alternative that comes to my mind is that the actual trim effect (flight model) would be modified, but that sounds a bit silly - why to mess with FM, when you can just give us various "speed" (offset to the real one) how the trim changes.

Reported by a few players, acknowledged, and fix should be on the way.