NineLine

Reported. Thanks.

This should be fixed now, thanks.

Please stop, people on both sides have received warnings and had posts removed, I am trying to let it be as free as possible for both. You only see your own warnings and your own removed posts. Don't assume one way or the other. If you see something that you feel is not fitting, then report the post. If you can't find a bad opinion against ED in this thread, or the thread where the hundreds of other messages were moved then you probably are not looking hard enough. So once again, this thread is for discussion of the original post in this thread which is all the official info we currently know.

Just a reminder, this thread is to discuss what is known which is listed in the first post here. Everything else is not welcome here and just clouds an already frustrating issue. Thanks.

Just an update on this, this will be a priority but the engineer needed is currently on DTC and will get back to this after that. Thanks!

I have tried with your track and by running a clean mission. I am unable to reproduce this issue. Thanks.

Sorry I am not able to reproduce this. AP works fine here during cold start, no input is causing it to stop or not work.

Where did I ever say we refused to fix anything? I simply asked to check with the suggestion I included. Now the thread has expanded I will have to investigate further, but to be clear, I am not personally seeing this. Thanks.

I do not see any issue on my end, make sure you watch the Wags video on the subject. Setting a deadzone to only 0 can result in the AP kicking off if there is even a slight spike in the joystick input.

A number of them are fixed internally already and should release with the next major update provided testing goes ok.

Hey All, so firstly, all those listed bugs or issues have all been reported. This is a common issue in Early Access products and in fact, shows more so that it's being worked on. As new systems and features are added, it can affect older systems either unintentionally or by design in order for new things to be added. We do our best to mitigate these issues, but it's not always possible. Also, rarely do these issues make it past our Q&A team or Tester team (and are known before anyone), and just because they are marked reported on the forums does not mean we missed them, we are only acknowledging that these are reported. We do not enjoy or look at adding new issues, but it can be the downside of active development on a very complex aircraft. Most early-access aircraft see very similar problems. Next, "that the current pod is a mix of the old and the sniper pod to "test" it", This was never the case, it was not a mix of pods put in to test. It had nothing to do with testing. The Hybrid pod will be removed when the sniper is released, that is the only relation it has to that development. By the way, DCS itself may be referenced as stable or not a testing build, but as long as a module is in Early Access, it can be considered less than stable due to active development. A stable release of DCS as a whole does not include the status of any addon modules. You have been around a long time, I think you know that. To expand on the above "If they have never worked before, I could understand that, but that, no, that's BS." These systems are complex and intertwined, work on one thing that might touch on another system can risk an issue popping up. This is the nature of development on a complex modern fighter. We are not able to copy and paste these systems into DCS, in many cases, they are being designed from scratch with very little documentation to go on. Again, this is the nature of Early Access and active development. Lastly, "it seems it doesn't care ED much.", This is completely untrue, the F-16C is a flagship product in DCS, it's one of the most important modules we have released to date. It has some of the most active developments of our modules. It is still in Early Access and it is still seeing heavy development. Yes there are known issues and these are and will be addressed, but suggesting we don't care about this module is strange to me personally. Again, I must point out that everything you listed is acknowledged and reported. This is not a sign of not caring at all. Thanks. PS I should mention that there are no shared engineers, these systems being as complex and work-intensive to program means that a dev cannot bounce around from project to project or even system to system. So it's not a case of why this guy moved to that. Especially when you talk about art, core issues, etc. A good example is the work on the Sniper, the development on that is complex and extensive, and the dev(s) working on that will focus solely on that and that alone. It's not something you can bounce around between, as well it's not something someone who specializes in models, effects or core programming even can just jump into. We have highly specialized individuals at ED, much like you see at 3rd Parties who have a person who does art, someone who does FMs, etc. It goes further into Helos, Western or Eastern Systems, etc.

G2 is in the list so make sure you vote for that option, thanks!

Let us know what VR set you use for DCS!

Our team will be getting a few different devices soon, so we will start testing and checking then. I know this is a reply to a reply of an old post, but the intent of my response here was about the lack of available FFB devices on the market, not the costs. Anyways, this is all resolving itself now. Thanks.

Sorry the track didn't play back correctly, but I do not think this is a bug, if there is a partial fuel leak you will see the fire like this if the fuel catches fire. I'll leave this open incase you manage to catch it again. Thanks.

Hey all, while the tracks from campaigns did work, I was finally able to reproduce on a Hot Start and slightly on an Air start, this is reported and set to High Priority. Thanks all, and sorry it took so long.

I'll check on this one today and see what I can find out. Thanks!

Hi all, as stated earlier we will look at Terrain Avoidance down the road, but currently it's low priority versus other tasks, the F/A-18C pilots we talked to say they have used this system 0% of the time for their flights.

Ok, the issue was partial fixed but as you can see still has issues, its still a high priority to fix and the team is on it. Thanks!

Thanks, I will look into this.

In this short DCS: F-16C Viper video, we’ll be discussing the new option to select how the control stick Flight Control System dead zone and force gradient is calculated. Until now, the dead zone and force gradient has been calculated based on the actual F-16C FLCS input logic. However, this has been best used with Force Sensitive sticks, and not self-centering, spring-loaded sticks that the vast majority of DCS pilots use. In the last update, we added the option to either use the actual dead zone and force gradient settings for the F-16C or one that mimics your Axis Tuning values. Select the Option gear icon, then the Special Tab, and finally the F-16C. When enabled for pitch and roll, the actual FLCS control gradient is used, and best for force sensing sticks. When not enabled, it uses a linear gradient and best for traditional self-centering sticks. When enabled, the pitch dead zone is also set to a realistic value of 4.375% and roll dead zone of 5.9%, but again, this is best used for force sensitive sticks. If not enabled, the dead zone will mimic your Axis Tuning dead zone setting. Please be careful when setting the dead zone if you are not sure about the centering of your joystick. A dead zone setting of just 0% could result in commanded inputs like disabling autopilot. Remember that even a little control stick input can result in disabling the autopilot. From the Special Tab, you also can manually set pitch and roll dead zone values. We hope that this improvement will better allow players, regardless of their control stick type, to get the maximum performance out of their DCS Viper.

Thanks will look into it.

It is the better modelling of radar shadows behind objects, we have had it for terrain for a long time but we are also now adding it for ground structures. Thanks.

I am sorry to say that this could not be further from the truth. Currently, most of our Viper work is focused on the Sniper Pod, radar and DTC. These tasks are manpower intensive and demand a lot of attention and work. You may see lulls in patch notes but that does not equate to lack of care, moving on or abandoning. The Viper is a flagship module for us, I do not see work on it stopping anytime soon. Thanks.

Hi, the thread is marked as investigating, meaning we are looking into it. Many of our SME's are not looking for attention, or in some cases are not even on these forums. We do not divulge sources or contacts just to do so. So yes, to a certain degree after many many years in the flight sim business, you will have to "trust us". So trust us that if it's marked investigating we feel there is enough to take a look at the issue noted. Thanks.