virgo47

I wish this dialog had a Cancel button: I hope it is trivial. The reasons are: Sometimes this problem is transient (e.g. forgotten VPN, network glitch) - and I'd like to try again immediately. Perhaps even Retry button would be handy - but there still should be a way to abort. I don't want to start at all without server, e.g. because I planned to go multiplayer. Why bother to wait for the whole process (with one more similar dialog later) if I'd rather try later. Currently I have to suffer the whole start process to Exit the game/try again.

Are there any updates for this in 2024? We've got not only circular but also a 4-point zone - this makes the programmatic check much harder. And there are conditions in ME triggers - but I can't see anything in vanilla DCS Lua scripting. I know I can do this with MOOSE, but do I have to use a library for this?

I like the latest patches exactly because of this. Even if they don't necessarily fix bugs for me, I like it because in the end we all benefit from better and more stable core.

Yeah, I've seen that thread, but there wasn't my error verbatim in posts, but yes - it's the same thing in the attached log! But the last advice was not relevant for me - because I really have as simple totally fresh setup as possible.

Ah... so there are buttons that are kinda dangerous... My problem was I was trying to develop a mission so I needed to upload a newer and newer version. You can't delete an unused mission - the file is still locked - so I added more missions instead. But eventually, the UI reported different mission as already running in the list than the one that was shown in the upper half and I couldn't switch it no matter what. So for reliable testing, the best course of action is to restart the server occasionally. Better be sure what is happening than being confused. Normally I just run the mission from the ME, but here I was hunting for an event that didn't work on MP dedicated server. But I figured it out and the dedicated server served its purpose.

This is my first hour with the dedicated server - I just needed to check one mission on the Caucasus, so I installed only that. I was quite impressed how well it all started, I like the console, etc. However, just the first attempt to stop one mission and load another one ended with the following error: ERROR ASYNCNET server_start failed: game already started Server UI clearly indicates the server is offline. I thought the DCS game itself collides with the dedicated server - but no, that is not the case. I always need to close the server window (that splashscreen) and restart it. Then it works. But obviously, that takes much more time. What can be the reason behind the server thinking it is running when it is indicated not to?

Although I (thought I) knew what I'd get into, I bought many of these older modules, just because I liked the plane. I tried them before and went for it. I look at this from a few perspectives and I quite agree with your assessment. Older, old-standard module should probably go down with the price somewhat. A minor counterpoint is, that there are sales, often 50% for most of the older modules, but yes, from the pure apples-to-apples perspective, they are less value however you look at it. I don't expect ED to update the standard of the module. It would be nice, but that would be a really big burden. Sometimes they revamp their iconic modules (Black Shark, A-10C), you pay the upgrade price, that's OK. What bothers me personally most are bugs. Bugs accumulate over time - and it seems that if the module flies and can shoot at least one of its guns, it's OK with ED. Sometimes we celebrate bug fixes like flaps finally working properly in a Mustang after years, it feels like Stockholm syndrome, really. And tons of trivial bugs related to controls which are just "features" now. I'm over-sensitive to bugs, so it seems.

Yak-52 changes! No toggle fixes, but hopes are getting higher.

I watched the video and I mostly agree with the sentiment there. I wish there were more things finished. And I don't mean Afghanistan vs Iraq teams. A map delayed a month or two, whatever. I mean the modules that are in limbo for a long time that calling them abandonware is closer to reality than not, e.g. Yak-52. Just because it still works it is technically probably not an abandonware. In every other aspect, it is. NS430 propagating "radio" on its shop page. And most annoying are all those bugs that slowly accumulate in older modules, reported - and that's it. Minimal priority. I'd rather have ATC working a bit better, but because there is some new ATC on the horizon (I don't believe it will land in two years anyway), ATC is totally ignored in the Caucasus. This also breaks older missions for older modules. I believe older modules do deserve more than just being kept "bootable". They should work. I don't ask for improvements. Just for bug fixes. Instead, we get that Voice chat where SRS worked fine. Sure, great idea, hopefully will be feature complete and bug-free eventually. Starting new projects have ever more priority than fixing bugs. That can only end with way too many bugs in way too many modules.

Hello comrades! (In an I-16 fashion, no politics here...) I'm wandering what are the various lines and notches on the control indicators. For some planes (mostly jets) it's dead easy and boring. Here, it's more interesting: Some things are obvious - 1 is pitch&roll, 2 is rudder/yaw, 3&4 are toe-brakes. 5 is throttle (Thrust in axis) and 7 is RPM (Engine RPM Setting axis). But what are 6 and 8? As they don't move at all whatever axis I tried, I assume they some kind of position indication for the corresponding axis (but hardly an AB ). Does anybody know? These things should be always explained in docs, but they are not, from what I've seen.

Now I look at this addition to your post... Some people have no problem with curves, even on collective, e.g. to have more sensitivity in the mid-range - but this is not your case, neither the biggest problem here. Why is there all the saturation lowered? Try 100 for both saturations so you access the whole range of the collective. As for the throttle - as mentioned above, you definitely should let it settle on max before doing anything with the collective (minimum collective until then). That said, I still feel like there is something else fishy going on with your DCS. MAXsenna may be right with some mod or what.

There seems to be something very wrong, at least from that track - is this how it looks for you? Those visual jumps back and forth? (Time slow down in the first pass is done by me, just to see what is going on.) From the outside view, it seems like the whole helo is glitched. I tried it two times - and the third time (~1:50) I took control and there seems to be no problem with the helicopter or the mission: From the screenshot in one of the previous posts I don't see any axis conflict, neither I see a serious problem on the control indicator. I have no idea why it's glitching like this.

After a few vain attempts to take off in this plane, I started to search for what I'm doing wrong - and obviously found this thread. It really is a frustrating plane - doubly so without any feeling of what it's doing. While in many other taildraggers you can kinda balance around the right position, here the small corrections often come way too late and slamming on the pedals right and left for a short time often work better - at least at the beginning. At the end of a long evening I've managed to take off once (I needed the grass and parallel RWY for it though ). And even land alive. The slip/turn indicator helps as well - mostly the turn one, I'd say, as the slip one goes all around when I try to fix the turn one that deviates first (with the whole plane as well). But the plane is definitely crazy, even compared to other taildraggers such as P-47 or P-51. Those are we well behaved gentlemen compared to this one.

When I adjust the altimeter, this happens: Track file attacked. i16-funny-altimeter.trk

Yeah, that ED involvement is mysterious to me as well. And I trialled MiG-21 as well and saw its bugs first-hand. I bought some modules from 3rd party devs (not counting Belsimtek), but I don't plan to buy anything from Mag3 at this support level. But ED's modules also have some ridiculously old bugs in modules like L-39 or UH-1H. Some of them more annoying than others, but for whatever (priority/money) reasons they don't care about seemingly trivial things such as random selection of UH-1H radio knobs turning the other way on mouse wheel either. Reported, ignored. So it's not only 3rd party devs.

I can only recommend Quaggle's Command Injector again. Highly recommended. It's not only MiG-21 and mouse, many other planes miss some bindings or offer only toggle instead of separate bindings, or bindings are not available for keyboard or mouse. This helps with most of them: Yes, it is annoying that we have to solve this instead of just playing the game, but there is a way.

If this waits on ED, it's not really good. I wish there was more passion in this game to fix stuff than to just release new stuff - and eventually end up in sad state as the stuff before. Something in the attitude must seriously change or in 10 years we will just have more and more buggy modules. But none will be "broken" by DCS self-imposed standards. But I've heard that the product still works when it comes to the silent majority - and there is hardly any alternative - so I don't think ED feels any pressure to fix more bugs in older modules. I'm not sure about responsibilities in this case, but I'm talking about DCS in general and ED as the one setting the standards. I trialled the CE2 - and for the price and fun I'd bought it, were there not those ugly flying numbers (and missing numbers on the displays).

Thanks for the release, it looks good here. In UH-1H there is just one inverted knob that should not be, but just fix it in your sources for now, no need to re-release - this is the correct form: VHFCOMM_VOL|vhfcomm_vol|VHF Volume Control (step size less than 8192 may not work)|6|8192|=ctr(65535)|0 If I find anything else, I'll let you know.

Update patch is new (at least for me), but I believe it's a very good thing to do. Relatively low risk as it will likely fix more than break. No sarcasm there, I realize the risk in any patch, but mildly breaking one campaign (and only in likely patched mission anyway), is virtually no risk at all. I always believed campaign fixes should have been done like this. Great idea, kudos!

Hi @xoomigo, my original idea was to have both in that PP file like this: ALT_MSL_FT|alt_msl_ft|Altitude MSL (ft)|0|0|=int(65535)|0 ALT_MSL_FT|alt_msl_m|Altitude MSL (m)|0|0|=int(65535)*(0.3048)|0 The reason is I also didn't want to have just meters, I wanted both. It didn't work for meters - the value appeared in the plugin and I could place it somewhere or print it, but it stayed 0. Before your latest patch the rest of the values worked fine (heading, speed, feet altitude). After the patch it doesn't work if I have this partially "duplicate" line - all values are returned as 0/unchanged, although the verbose debug shows the games sends them in. That said - I believe we can ignore this issue because the latest TP 4.3 released recently added https://www.touch-portal.com/docs/index.php#advanced-calculations and this got me thinking... and eventually I realized I can do this (even in previous TP, silly me) with something like this: This makes it pretty easy, there is no need for TP event that needs to be imported separately, it all nicely clicks together and works fine. So, sorry for bothering you with this, I guess it's not important and it can be done in TP just fine.

Works great, I can now select all the operations! Thanks for the fix.

OK, I can only accept your assurance, it is strange and intriguing that JF-17 is designed in this manner different from virtually all other planes (as far as I know, as I'm no mechanical/hydraulics engineer). Do you know what's behind this? Or is it the other way around, that parking brake is roughly the same pressure as for any similar jet, but full brake action is considerably weaker in comparison? BTW: Excuse my curiosity, but that's why I play DSC.

After a long break (after the three-part STECS review) I finally kicked myself to another one, and to be done with VKB reviews, this is the newest one: This time it's a one-parter. Until I upgrade there'll be no more VKB reviews. Enjoy.

I see it in the Take Off procedures, 2.3.1, you're right about that. Does this mean that the full brake pedal action is lower than the parking brake? Or is there no direct relation between the pressure indication and the breaking power?

Ah, sorry, yes, I mentioned that, now I see it buried in the middle of the text. Yeah, that was just a minor nuisance (annoying and should be mentioned in the instructions, of course).