virgo47

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.

OK, then I'd join the ranks of annoyed people. I liked many of those and I like changing the skins in my custom missions just for fun. There should be at least the original set available, I believe.

I agree with this sentiment. It would be much easier to release the module with some disclaimer/known issues/todo commitments. It was not in the release notes, luckily it was clarified in the forums and I'm looking forward to the previous set of skins - which should be available eventually not to make this a downgrade in some aspect. I understand the new model requires new template and old custom skins are gone, that makes sense. But again, it would be easier if it was stated in the release notes. But everybody's learning all the time, perhaps next remaster will be handled better by ED. I'd not expect, or even require, people on forums to understand this implicitly. Why should they/we? Fortunately, no big deal in this case. The skins are coming.

Total support for this. I don't mind the third-person view - it would be great to have a special CA option for sure, but I can live with that. But currently, it's impossible to use head-tracking and shoot in CA. It's such a glaring omission... bug, of course. It's like nobody ever tested it with trackir, which suggests a different team that perhaps doesn't play DCS as normal players at all. I'm not saying it's like that, but the result is the same.

I reported the hatches and sent NineLine a track file. But thanks for confirming it's not just me. In my case it doesn't work for neither Player nor Client.

@BIGNEWY How about service hatches in the new F-5? I see the shortcut there, I tried it hot and cold, but it doesn't seem to do anything. But I've seen them open in the Remaster video (12s). Is it coming later or am I doing something wrong? It's a little thing, but it would be a pleasure, of course. I guess that's why it's in the video.

You have to see it first to see HOW transparent and strange it is now.

Have you logged in on the web site?

I don't think it's right. Now it looks like the metal rod is sticking out of it. The material properties are not right. Also, what are those hard lines doing there when you look at it? It seems like the material properties are so bad, that the renderer messes it even more. But yeah... it was an instant buy for me as well. Now, fingers crossed, this will not be a problem for the next years or so. Plus limited skins, etc. The problem is, it's much easier to see what went wrong with the upgrade, what we lost, etc.. than what we gained.

This one looks good. Unlike in my post, where I wasn't sure whether the metal rod is sticking out or what. Is that from this version, just with different graphics settings or from a different source? Man, I hope they can fix material properties easily, having this "low priority" lever for 10 more years would be a bit of a shame, wouldn't it?

Thanks for the picture. It is partially transparent, but that new look doesn't match this picture at all. It's not even clear what part of that handle is inside and what is outside - unless one knows it. For comparison, FC2024 version is a bit little transparent perhaps, but much less distrubing:

The new gear lever is much more transparent then previously, it looks a bit strange - is it realisitic or a bug?

Wrong thread title, btw... it's not F-15E.

It was an instant buy for me, but the lack of skins, especially previously available skins, not even talking about custom ones, is a bit shocking omission. I hope it will be remediated.

ATC is quite terrible because you have to track which aerodromes are broken and which are still fine. There's an aerodrome where nav to initial says totally contradictory things: And another one where you're sent the wrong way in an Su-25T mission: Many experiments show that 0 wind acts like high wind, and wind from >0 to ~5 m/s acts differently. No logic at all. I'm not sure about other maps as I play the Caucasus predominantly - especially for various experiments - but it's so easy to find confusing and buggy ATC stuff that one has to keep their own database of aerodromes to avoid for some mission setups. Not to mention that confusing clearance denial we all ignore by now (but imagine being a newcomer player, the impression is really bad) or often a trivial sequence of comms with ATC that results in blank options for that airport (no option to takeoff nor land, nothing). It's not OK by any stretch of the imagination. It just is and somewhat works for a very limited set of circumstances.