LeCuvier

You can create the commands for seat adjustment UP/STOP/DOWN by adding these 2 lines to the file "default.lua": {down = 3502, up = 3502, cockpit_device_id = devices.MSC, value_down = 1, value_up = 0, name = _('Seat Adjustment UP/STOP'), category = _('Pilot & Seat Controls')}, {down = 3502, up = 3502, cockpit_device_id = devices.MSC, value_down = -1, value_up = 0, name = _('Seat Adjustment DOWN/STOP'), category = _('Pilot & Seat Controls')}, I'm amazed that RAZBAM has still not added this command in the stock file...

To make the button go up on release you need to include this: "up = fcs_commands.Button_FLAP_BIT". So the complete line is: {down = fcs_commands.Button_FLAP_BIT, up = fcs_commands.Button_FLAP_BIT, cockpit_device_id = devices.VREST, value_down = 1.0, value_up = 0.0, name = _('Flaps BIT Button'), category = _('VSTOL Controls')}, This makes the button go up and down, but I couldn't see any reaction. Frankly, I rarely fly the Harrier and since there is still no flight manual I have no way of knowing what the Flaps BIT is supposed to do.

For the complete 3-position switch you need to add these 2 lines of code: For a 2-position ON/OFF switch you need only the first of the 2 lines.

I have a throttle, a joystick, pedals and a button box. And each one has buttons/axes default-assigned to the same command. Even the button box is assigned to axis commands although it doesn't have any pot. Lots of View commands are default-assigned to each of these devices. That's more than a few seconds to clean up. Plus, I have seen default bindings that I had removed coming back. There are lots of threads reporting that. If it doesn't bother that's fine but a lot of people (including myself) mind, and newbies get confused. And if someone sees this as an issue, that's not nagging.

I agree. It's already now possible to assign a Focke-Wulf to USA and a Mustang to Germany. And I see no reason why I shouldn't be able to make such funny choices when I create my own missions. Only problem in my setup was, the Mustang then had no German livery. It had no livery at all, it was just metallic. The Mustang on the other side had an imaginary German livery.

Oops! are you saying that you are not using the same stick with the Hornet? In that case I would certainly check the calibration of the stick you use with the A-10C II!

You are not the only one suffering from this default binding madness. But you should probably post under DCS World 2.5/Wish List

My pitch and roll axes are not set as "Slider" and they function normally. I would have guessed that your stick needs calibration, but if it works with the Hornet then that's not it. Very strange!

I follow the "help yourself" principle and created bindings myself by adding some lines to "default.lua". I have one binding for use with a 2-position on/off switch, and 2 bindings for separate ON and OFF pushbuttons. I can post if someone wants to edit the lua file. It was not possible to create a command that toggles between ON and OFF with a single pushbutton.

You are obviously trimmed "tail-heavy". Give it some "nose-down" trim input until she flies pitch-neutral.

Even if I share your opinion, I think that's not the right style to express it. We all have a right to our individual opinions, and we should respect each other.

@rkk01: I've had the 3 German warbirds from the very beginning, and I also use buttons & switches on my HOTAS + button box extensively, and I never click cockpit items during flight or even combat. Yet I do not see the bindings as fickle. I have flown the 3 a lot, and I have rarely lost a binding.

@TGL: Can you elaborate on this statement " I'm having issues with my controls when flying missions as they only allow me to use the F-16C_50_easy controls ". How does this limitation manifest itself? And do you have full sim mode in the training lessons? That would be a very strange situation. On your screenshot I do not see any bindings for sim mode. Have you entered the bindings for sim mode? I'm not familiar with Steam, but it shouldn't matter if you bought the sim directly from ED or via Steam.

It's true that many trim bindings don't work well with pushbuttons, mostly they are too "fast". In some cases I have been able to adjust the "gain" in "clickabledata.lua", but that's not a valid solution for the user community. Rather than introducing game type options for WW II aircraft, I would like to see ED providing key bindings that work well with push buttons, plus bindings that work with rotary encoders. And of course, axis bindings at least for those aircrafts that have axis-like trim controls in reality.

In my 44-year career I've been involved in many complex product developments. And one lesson we learned from painful experience is: "don't try to be all things to all people". If you do, your product will become overly complex. That makes it difficult and expensive to maintain, and in the end it will become confusing for users. It's better to create target versions of the product. In this case this would mean, one for casual users that don't want to be bothered with stalls, need to trim, difficult take-off/landing, engine management and what have you, plus a full sim that really simulates "the real thing". Maybe that's what the development of "Modern Air Combat" is for. The smart thing to do would be to let people start with the "easy" version to get the hooked, and then let those who want real sim upgrade to the sim. Right now, the "game mode" already causes confusion especially for new users because you have to make choices in 3 areas: 1. In Options you have to select or de-select game avionics mode and game flight mode 2. The same options exist in the Mission Editor, so you can have conflicting choices between missions and general settings. 3. When you edit the control bindings you have to be sure to select "Easy" or "Sim" based on how you want to play the game. Plus there are options under "Special" like Auto-Rudder and Take-Off Assistance that you may have to de-select if you want to fly real sim. I have also an opinion about wanting to fly a WWII fighter that handles like a modern jet fighter, but I keep that to myself.

I have experienced this a few days ago and I thought it was a problem in my equipment. If it happens again I will save a track and report the bug.

If you want to fly in sim mode you have to make sure that your key bindings are defined for sim mode. In Options/Controls, select the right module and mode. For the F/A-18C that is "F/A-18C Sim". In order to fly in sim mode, go to Options/Gameplay and make sure that both "Game Flight Mode" and "Game Avionics Mode" are un-ticked.

On the Bf-109 I use an axis (left throttle lever). On the FW-190 (both) the POV hat on my joystick grip (no axis available). I find rotary encoders generally too slow for the trim axes (plus, I have only two). On the P-47 I use the POV hat as well, but have reduced the "sensitivity" (gain value) in "clickabledata.lua" because in fact I found it too fast.

@TGL: Missions can be set to use game mode. To check for these settings in the mission editor: - Open the mission in ME - Open the menu item "CUSTOMIZE". This opens a dropdown list. - Select "MISSION OPTIONS". This opens a tab showing a large number of mission options. Among these options you find "Game avionic mode" and "Game flight mode". Make sure these are not ticked. Note: the stock missions from ED are stored in the game folder. If you want to modify missions, better copy them to Saved Games. That's because modified files in the game folder are restored to original state during Update or Repair.

Do we really know that the majority of DCS use is in SP? I have never seen such a statement from ED, and they are the only ones who could know. I certainly support the point that AI behaviour should be improved. I don't have hawk eyes any more, and without labels I cannot spot a bandit or ground target until I'm too close for comfort. And since labels are OFF on most MP servers (forget the almost invisible little grey dot!), I play SP almost exclusively.

Thanks guys, I got it!

I can take off (with no flaps) and land (with flaps), but I'm wondering what the correct flaps position is for take-off. No flaps seems wrong, but so does ffull flaps. However I see no way to extend the flaps to, say 20% for take off as I don't find a flaps position indicator. The manual only tells me to extend the flaps for take-off, but how much?

I watched a YT video MiG-15 vs F-86F and learned there that the Sabre turns better than the MiG at low altitude. So I tried again, with the MiG's skill level set to "trained". This time I used the rudder more extensively to facilitate the turn. And in fact, I found that I could out-turn the MiG-15, get behind and after a lot of turning finish the job. Second time, it took a lot less turning. Both times though I was close to blackout during the initial turns. It seems that I suck a bit less now and it's beginning to be fun. Nice module after all! AI MiG-15 set to "Veteran": I cannot defeat it in a turning fight, and I get dangerously close to the deck. The MiG then turns away to prepare a new attack. I cannot accelerate enough to put my self in a good position, so I get off in the opposite direction and run. I can usually escape and when I get close to Mach 1 he cannot keep up and he finally gives up and turns away. I then try to sneak up from behind, and that's my only chance to destroy the MiG.

I have tried to dogfight vs the MiG-15 AI, and I'm not happy. It seems that the Mig turns better and of course the AI has some tricks up its sleeves. The only tactic that works is to run away before I have lost speed, and that's not much fun. In the warbirds I make sure I get altitude that I can convert to speed. But the Sabre tends to do strange roll movements when speed goes above 400 knots and gets hard to control. I have rarely managed to sneak up behind the MiG, but that's very rare as the AI sees me whatever I do. In other words, I suck. What advice can successful pilots give me?

@epolta: I don't own the JF-17, so I can't investigate on my end. You should look at the fuction declaration for "default_axis_limited" to find out what parameter the "0.3" stand for. I would have guessed that it's "gain", but it might be something else.