wernst

The recent version 2.9. beta offers "cinematic camera view" using the key combination RCtrl + F2 in combination with mouse, allowing greater (cinematic) camera control . I tried this in the Hornet (MT) but the WASD or Q and E keys have no function. You can move the views with the mouse with very direct movements, as it was like before, but it's by far not soft and cinematic. So far nothing new, or am I missing something?

omg, this is embarrassing, please forget my post, but thanks.

I have the current DCS stable version. I own the "Normandy 1944" terrain (still not purchased Normandy 2.0) but I don't see the southern part of England (or don't see anymore). Only the part of northern France map.

When will the next update for the stable version be released? Since 27.12. last year there are no updates for the stable versions. Is ED waiting for the implementation of the MT functionality for stable? That would not be good, I don't see any advantage for MT for me, my middle class PC ystem runs almost perfect with 55 - 75 fps (no VR, single missions only). I want to use the new F16 features introduced with the 2.8.2.35632 beta version. How long do I have to wait to get it on stable?

That's it. The clever thing about this solution is that I could assigned the same lever as handbrake lever on my TM warthog joystick as it is on the real/simulated Mossi. Problem truly solved, the solution is frustratingly simple. Thanks.

unfortunately "not solved". I do not have a free analog axis on my throttle unit. My only free analog axis has been assigned to prop pitch setting, which is essential to keep the engine alive. Fast overheating Mossi's engine is another issue. "This was pointed out to DCS a long time ago"

I love the Mossi. Flying it is a real challenge, it seems to be as realistic as possible. But one coded peculiarity really bothers me. It's the tendency to headstand while taxiing or after landing when applying brakes not very carefully. I have owned and flown a light taildragger myself, a PA-16 "Clipper". This bird (max takeoff weight 748 kg) could accept any abrupt braking while taxiing at almost any speed without going into a headstand. I can't understand that Mossi, which is almost 10 times heavier, ever does a headstand when applying brakes at moderate ground roll speed. You can experience how difficult it is to lift the tail during take-off. During start roll it takes quite some time until enough lift has been generated and the „butt“ slowly rises at about 100 mp/h. So I can't imagine that at the roll speed of a cyclist the Mossi is already doing a headstand when applying moderate braking. But it does as the video shows. Mossi headstand.mp4

Please leave the new MT function as an option - even in the future. I have a mid-range PC i9-9900K (no OC) , RTX 2080S (no OC), 16 GB RAM, 1 TB SSD. Running DCS "stable version" on an ultra wide Monitor with a resolution of 3440 x 1440, all DCS system settings to "high". My frame rates in single missions are 70 fps on average and they never drop below 55 fps. I am more than satisfied that everything runs stable with more than acceptable frame rates. Therefore: Please keep the new MT function as an option in the future. The users to whom the MT brings improvements, e.g. for VR or MP, can choose it freely. Those for whom it does not bring improvement can use the current system. I have the fear that the new MT brings me no improvements but problems only.

Great! Thanks. That's it. Your trick works. Although it's not even a trick, it's taking advantage of the controls available. It's so easy, obviously too easy for me. I checked out your static template, looks truly nice. However, I'm not at all fit in ME editing (as already shown) and campaign building. And I assume the static template has no animated items. Anyway, I'm happy with the DCS "template.miz". Spectacular scenery can be seen especially during night operations when Hornets takeoff with their red glowing afterburner.

I know how to move a ME item on the map. But moving/dragging the ship on the map when it has been placed some 200 miles away from mainland is almost impossible. In order to select the ship icon you have to max. enlarge the scale of the map and consequently your single step of movement is extremly small.

Don't you know this?: C-SUPERCARRIER-HORNET-16-POPULATION TEMPLATE.miz Provided as standard by DCS here: . . Eagle Dynamics/DCS xxx/mods/tech/supercarrier/missions/single Nice template, nicely poulated but not freely movable in the ME map.

The DCS own Supercarrier template is a truly helpful resource for creating a rich populated carrier environment with minimal work. However, there is one detail that is annoying. When loading the template into the ME map, the aircraft carrier is randomly placed somewhere in the sea, several 100 miles away from the (enemy) mainland. You cannot freely position the SC in the ME map. Moving it manually is time-consuming, and the waypoints of the AI elements are then lost. Is there a way or a trick to position the SC at a certain point in the ME map when loading the SC template?

Great, thanks skywalker, I didn't notice that there is an easy accessible and accurate display of the ground speed. I ran a ground roll test using this exact display to see how sensitive the tippy tendency is in relation to ground roll speed when turning into a 45 deg. curve. 1. Viper with no payload and 50% fuel: turns into a 45 deg. curve is possible between 15 and max. 20 kts without tipping. 2. Viper with max payload and 100% fuel: turns into a 45 deg. curve is possible between 15 and max. 20 kts without tipping. I didn't expect the result because I assumed that more weight on the wheels would give more stability against tipping. Conclusion: In the sim it's not. All in all, I see now that there is no big issue, tippy is less worse than I thought first.

20 kts was just a first guessing, I measured my typical taxi speed and it's not higher than 10 kts. Rudder: Saitek Pro Flight combat rudder pedals. Of course, with much care I can manage it to get around the curve safely, but I wonder what happens IRL when a alert start is needed.

It has been reported here several times how difficult it is to keep the Viper on the runway with nose wheel steering after touchdown. Worse still is the tendency to tip over when rolling into a curve. Even at a moderate roll speed (e.g. 20 kts) you have to be prepared for the wingtips to scratch the ground. You have to take any turn carefully smooth like butter. It gives the impression that the Viper is as light as a feather, as if the jet has no weight on its wheels, like a plastic toy plane. The Viper is more tippy than any other aircraft in the sim. Does the real Viper show the same behavior?

There are no potential mistakes in my takeoff procedure . . . provided I have in ME chosen "takeoff from RWY". In this case TO is alway easy and successful. Regardless of "random" or "last direction of travel", the tailwheel in "takeoff from RWY" mode is alway in a position for easy takeoffs. Why is this different to "take off from ramp"?

Differential braking during taxi and takeoff is still an issue. But I have found that, oddly enough, this problem only exists when you taxi from ramp to the runway and then take off. If you build a mission in ME and choose the option "takeoff from RWY", then the take off run is easy controllable. The Mossi keeps almost straight on the center line of the RWY - without any diff brake control. As soon as the rudder has enough wind the plane can be steered with the pedals alone. It seems as if the position of the tailwheel in the "takeoff from RWY" mode is exactly aligned and is somehow fixed in this position during the TO run. In "takeoff from ramp" mode rolling to the runway leaves the tailwheel in a random position when arriving at the RWY takeoff position, even when you try to carefully center the plane. As result the random tailwheel alignment leads to continuous direction corrections during the TO run - compensation is possible with less than moderate success. The diff. braking system can be relatively well used for steering while taxiing. But for takeoff it strongly depends on which option you have choosen in the ME: "takeoff from ramp" or "takeoff from RWY". TO assist alway kept to "0".

That would be great. This braking lever problem has been annoying me for a long time. Does your modification require a 3D printer? (Which I dont have). Electronic DIY is not a problem at all.

You are absolutely right. If the joystick lever has no two-way-switch, which toggles between GROUND and PLUS, so there is no way for what I have suggested. Obviously the "brake is open" position will not be detected by the sim, only "brake closed" when the lever switch is activated. I was hoping it was a two-way-switch. It means, we are as far as before.

Yes, Imp, that could be the point. The piano has indeed two positions, each will be electrically registered. Ground line (wire) + 12 Volt line (wire). If the joystick lever's contact in OFF position is not electrically registered then I'm in . . . the meadow. And, yes, the quality of the switches is essential, bouncing effects would be an issue. (In the E-piano you could hear it). Conclusion: Further practice with the stick didgital lever as it is.

No, the piano is not different. Please learn that I have DIY built electronic organs and I know well that there is dedicated circuitry to measure the time of switching digital keys - no special sensors.

Please read carefully what I have written. My suggestion is that the program should measure the time how long does it take for the digital switch to go from OFF to ON position. And then translate this time to the force of the brake. Example: A digital piano only has digital on / off keys (switches) but can play loudly or silently, the keys have no axes.

Steering while taxiing the Mossi is challenging, because it's done by differential braking. I think it's a lot harder wit the Mossi than with the other warbirds wich have differential brakes. In order to steer precisely, you need to apply more or less force to the wheel brakes - carefully. Binding the wheel brakes to the brake lever on the TM Warthog stick is not sensitive at all. Because it only allows digital ON / OFF braking, it is not an analog brake axis. I tried binding the wheel brakes to the analog axis of one toe brake. The result wasn't great. Steering with both rudder pedals and at the same time carefully apply more or less braking force to the toe brake often ended in the grass next to the runway. My suggestion (to the wishlist): I would like the ED Devs to reprogram the inputs from the digital on / off lever of the TM joystick. The time it takes to move this lever from OFF to ON should be measured and converted linearly into the strength of the braking force. Fast/short = strong braking force, slow/long = weak braking force. Digression: Every good electric piano has a dynamic touch control which controls the volume of the tone linear/analog although all keys oonly have digital actuation (only on / off). It's implemented by measuring the time which takes for a key from OFF to ON: Hard touch = fast/short time key actuation = loud tone, soft touch = slow/long time key actuation = silent tone. The programming of the joystick brake lever actuation shouldn't be that difficult - but I don't know which hardware limitation could hinder this idea.

Thank you, Imp, any helpful advice is welcome. I have the TM Hotas Warthog combo. In the meantime I have tried different options to replace the (digital) on / off brake lever. Analog brakes binding to the rudder toe brakes pedals was an attempt, it was not ideal, it was worse. Rudder input and braking with your toes at the same time is somehow working, but sometimes only. The TDC's small (analog) nipple wasn't a solution either. The control input path is far too small and is much too sensitive. You cannot enter 1/10 mm on the nipple with your fingertips in order to control the brakes smoothly and carefully. In the meantime I have managed to place only 3 of 10 takeoff runs into the meadow. Yes, I suppose it is practice.

I updated 2 days ago from 13436 stable to 15038 stable and I noticed much problems getting in the air even with TO Assistant set to "0" - which I hadn't before without TO Assistant. With ME set to "taking off from RWY" there is no problem at all, takeoff run is smooth and stable. Tailwheel has always been checked for straight position.